3 Methods
[ pdf 138 kb ]
3.1 Label Collection
Labels were collected by Silliker Microtech Pty Ltd in 2003 and retained as part of a pilot label monitoring survey. The full method for collecting labels to be monitored for nutrition and health claims is given in Appendix 3.
For the purpose of the survey, foods were grouped into 14 major food categories using a classification system similar to that used in Standard 1.3.1 - Food Additives of the Food 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
14. Mixed foods
To collate the list of products, Stock Keeping Unit (SKU) lists were obtained from supermarket and retail outlets across Australia and New Zealand. From these lists, the total number in terms of the variety of products available in each food category was estimated. The cross-over between Australia and New Zealand SKUs (i.e. the number of identical 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 labels required for Australian food categories were reduced to 70% of that initially calculated.
Two and a half percent of the total SKUs for any given food category was chosen as a sampling quota. The total number of samples to be taken was calculated as 1284: 733 from Australia and 551 from New Zealand. 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 (99% target), as some products with the same product brand and product name were purchased in both New Zealand and Australia.
Retail packaged foods 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.
For labels to be collected 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 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 therefore analysing for brand types proved difficult. 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 principal supermarket chains. SKU data were not comprehensive enough to allow categorisation of labels in terms of specificity to either the North or South Island.
The total number of labels assessed in Phase 1, Stage 2 of the project was 1262; 721 were collected in Australia and 541 collected in New Zealand. Four labels collected in the initial stage of the project were not assessed due to discrepancies in the data recorded in the previous stage of the project.
3.2 Data Collection
A draft checklist for nutrition, health and related claims was provided by FSANZ and modified to form a database containing the criteria required for the assessment of the labels collected for Phase 1, Stage 2 in 2003 (Appendix 2).
The Project Team for Stage 2 assessed each label according to whether it carried a nutrition claim or a health claim, using the claim classification framework set out in the Initial Assessment Report Proposal P293 (Appendix 1) for guidance. A quality assurance step was carried out to check the accuracy of the data before entering it into the database.
As part of the checklist for each label, the exact wording of each claim was recorded in the database. Following completion of label assessment and data entry, any inconsistencies identified were resolved by referring to the exact wording or the actual labels.
3.2.1 Data security and confidentiality
Data collected in Phase 1 Stage 2 of the survey were obtained via disc from FSANZ in Microsoft Access format as developed by Silliker Microtech. Key data relating to the previous assessment of each label (eg. product name, numerical code, collection details etc) was transferred into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Additional data collected in Phase 2 Part C was entered and stored in this version-numbered spreadsheet. The spreadsheet was stored electronically on a secure network, in a sector accessible only by members of the Project Team.
The Excel spreadsheet was interrogated using Filemaker Pro 7, and the consolidated data was transferred manually into tables for reporting.
3.3 Provisions used for label assessment
This section summarises the labelling provisions used to assess whether labels in the current survey featured claims.
a) Standard 1.2.8 – Nutrition Information Requirements sets out nutrition information requirements in relation to food that is required to be labelled under the Food Code and for food exempt from these labelling requirements. This Standard prescribes when nutritional information must be provided, and the manner in which such information is provided (e.g. Nutrition Information Panel), including the conditions for making certain nutrition content claims.
Specific requirements include declarations of the trans, polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fatty acid content where a nutrition content claim is made for cholesterol, saturated, trans, polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fatty acids or omega-3, omega-6 or omega-9 fatty acids.
A declaration of the presence or absence of dietary fibre must be included in the panel when a nutrition claim is made for fibre, any specifically named fibre, sugars, or any other type of carbohydrate.
Information relating to the percentage daily intake of nutrients set out in a nutrition information panel may be included in the panel, as long as certain criteria are met.
Division 3 of Standard 1.2.8 also sets out the conditions for making nutrition claims in relation to the following:
- Polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fatty acid content of foods
- Omega fatty acid content of foods
- Low joule claims in relation to food
- Lactose claims in relation to food
- Gluten content of food
- Salt, sodium or potassium content of food
b) Standard 1.3.2- Vitamins and Minerals regulates the claims which can be made in relation to the presence of a vitamin or mineral in those foods for which the voluntary addition of vitamins and/or minerals is permitted, and lists the specific vitamins and minerals (and amounts) permitted.
Under this Standard, a claim to the effect that a food is a good source of a vitamin or mineral may be made if a reference quantity of the food contains no less than 25% of the Recommended Dietary Intake (RDI) or Estimated Safe and Adequate Daily Dietary Intake (ESADDI) for that vitamin or mineral.
c) Standard 2.9.1 - Infant Formula Products. This Standard provides for the compositional (including nutritional), and labelling requirements for foods intended or represented for use as a substitute for breast milk. This Standard also provides for infant formula products intended for infants with special nutritional requirements, and prohibits certain representations about the product in relation to health and nutrition.
d) Standard 2.9.2 - Foods for Infants. This Standard provides for the compositional (including nutritional) and labelling requirements of foods intended and/or represented for use as food for infants. This Standard also prescribes the conditions for making claims about vitamins and minerals in foods for infants.
e) Standard 2.9.3 - Formulated Meal Replacements and Formulated Supplementary Foods .This Standard provides compositional and labelling requirements for formulated meal replacements and formulated supplementary foods. In addition, this Standard sets out the compositional and labelling requirements for formulated supplementary foods for young children, aged one to three years.
f) Standard 2.9.4 - Formulated Supplementary Sports Foods. This Standard defines and regulates the composition and labelling of foods specially formulated to assist sports people in achieving specific nutritional or performance goals. This Standard provides for the addition of certain micronutrients and other ingredients that are not permitted to be added to other foods, and sets out the requirements for making permitted nutrition claims.
g) Standard 1.1A.2-Transitional Standard – Health Claims. This transitional standard sets out certain prescriptions relating to health claims, and generally prohibits the following, unless they are expressly permitted elsewhere in the Food Code:
- Claims or statements that the food is a slimming food or has intrinsic weight-reducing properties
- Claims for therapeutic or prophylactic action or a claim described by words of similar import
- The words ‘health’ or any word or words of similar import as a part of or in conjunction with the name of the food
- Any word, statement, claim, express or implied, or design that directly or by implication could be interpreted as advice of a medical nature from any person
- The name of or a reference to any disease or physiological condition.
This Standard also sets out the eligibility criteria for certain foods to carry a specific, high level health claim about the benefit of maternal consumption of folate, to prevent neural tube defects (eg. spina bifida) in developing foetuses.
h) Code of Practice on Nutrient Claims in Food Labels and in Advertisements 1995 (CoPoNC). CoPoNC provides the basis for voluntary self-regulation of nutrition claims by the Australian food industry. It sets out the conditions under which certain claims may be made on the labels of food packages, on labels associated with unpackaged foods and in the advertising for foods.
CoPoNC covers nutrition claims made with respect to the following nutrients: fats, saturated fats, cholesterol, sugars, fibre, salt and sodium, and energy. Other terms are also covered, including ‘X% free’ (when applied to any nutrient other than fat), the terms ‘Light’, ‘Lite’ or ‘Diet’, and comparative claims between different foods.
Nutrition claims are either expressed as absolute (e.g. ‘high’, ‘low’ or ‘free’) or as comparative, where a particular food is compared to a reference food (e.g. ‘reduced’ or ‘increased’).
i) Fair Trading legislation Certain sections of the New Zealand Fair Trading Act 1986(FTA) and the Australian Trade Practices Act1974(TPA) relate to food labelling and marketing. Specifically, claims about food content, quality, quantity, characteristics or benefits must not be misleading or deceptive. In relation to food, this includes labelling of food products, any advertising, promotional material, or verbal representation about those products.
Labels with nutrition or health claims were assessed against fair trading legislation in terms of the representation not being false, misleading or deceptive in any particular way.
j) New Zealand Dietary Supplement Regulations 1985 (NZDSR) The NZDSR has specific labelling requirements that relate to all dietary supplements, including Food Type Dietary Supplements (FTDS).
Labels must include the quantities or proportions of the claimed active ingredients in the package or container or in each dosage unit.
Unless permitted by other legislation, dietary supplements may not make therapeutic claims relating to any of the following:
- Treating or preventing disease
- Diagnosing disease or ascertaining the existence, degree or extent of a physiological condition
- Altering the shape, structure, size or weight of the human body
- Otherwise preventing or interfering with the normal operation of a physiological function, whether permanently or temporarily, and whether by way of terminating or reducing or postponing, or increasing or accelerating, the operation of that function, or in any other way.
Thus, while therapeutic claims are not permitted under the NZDSR, health claims are not prohibited. Inclusion of the term ‘dietary supplement’ on the product label is required under this regulation, which assisted the Project Team in identifying any labels to be assessed against NZDSR.
3.4 Assessment of claims
When a label claim was identified, it was assessed against the specific requirements of the labelling provisions to determine whether it was consistent with those provisions.
Assessment of claims against certain provisions required interpretation by the assessors, and this section provides key examples to indicate how such assessments were made.
3.4.1 Nutrition claims on labels collected in Australia and New Zealand
a)Standard 1.2.8 – Nutrition Information Requirements
Any nutrients or biologically active substances that were listed in the NIP in addition to those required by a standard NIP were assessed as absolute nutrition content claims. Where the nutrients or substances were not mentioned anywhere else on the label, and the amount claimed was consistent with any other relevant provision of Standard 1.2.8, the claim was considered to be consistent with the requirements of Standard 1.2.8. This included claims that were inconsistent with the requirements of any other labelling provision, where the claim would be recorded as inconsistent with the requirements of that other provision.
Where a nutrient or biologically active substance is mentioned on a label, it is required to be listed in the NIP to not more than three significant figures. In the current survey, when a nutrient or biologically active substance was mentioned on the label, but not listed correctly in the NIP, the claim was considered to be not consistent with the requirements of Standard 1.2.8 for absolute content nutrition claims.
Where a nutrition claim is made in respect of cholesterol, saturated, trans, polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fatty acids or omega-3, omega-6 or omega-9 fatty acids, the amount of the trans, polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fatty acids must be declared in the NIP. In the current survey, if the label did not provide the fatty acid information as required, this was counted as a single inconsistency, even if the label made nutrition claims in relation to more than one of the above nutrients eg. ‘Cholesterol Free, good source of Omega 3 fatty acids’. Such claims were assessed as absolute or comparative nutrition content claims, depending on whether the claim used the terms ‘high’ or ‘low’ (absolute content), or, ‘increased’ or ‘decreased’ (comparative content).
Where a nutrition claim is made in respect of fibre, any specifically named fibre, sugars, or any other type of carbohydrate, the nutrition information panel must include a declaration of the presence or absence of dietary fibre. The absence of dietary fibre in the product must be declared as zero. In the current survey, where such a claim was made on the label, but dietary fibre was not correctly listed in the NIP, the claim was assessed as inconsistent with the requirements of Standard 1.2.8 for absolute content nutrition claims.
Where percentage daily intake information is included in a panel, the percentage daily intake of energy, fat, saturated fatty acids, carbohydrate, sugars, protein and sodium must be provided, accompanied by the statement ‘*Percentage daily intakes are based on an average adult diet of 8700 kJ. Your daily intakes may be higher or lower depending upon your energy needs.’
In the current survey, where the label listed RDI information, this was assessed as a single comparative content nutrition claim. If the label did not provide the RDI information correctly, this was counted as a single inconsistency.
Specific claims in relation to polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fatty acid content, omega fatty acid content, low joule, lactose, gluten or salt, sodium or potassium content were each assessed according to the provisions of Division 3 of Standard 1.2.8 for nutrition claims. For example, for an absolute content nutrition claim that a food is low lactose, lactose must be listed in the NIP, and the amount in the food must not be higher than 0.3 g per 100 g. The amount of galactose in the product must also be listed in the NIP, with the format for this prescribed in Standard 1.2.8. As the claim relates to sugars, a declaration of the presence or absence of dietary fibre must also appear in the NIP. If any of these label components were absent or in a different format to that prescribed, the nutrition claim was assessed as inconsistent with the requirements of Standard 1.2.8.
b) Standard 1.3.2– Vitamins and Minerals
Standard 1.3.2 sets out several criteria for making claims relating to the presence of vitamins or minerals in a food. For example, a claim to the effect that a food is a good source of a vitamin or mineral may be made if a reference quantity of the food contains no less than 25% of the RDI or ESADDI for that vitamin or mineral. If the amount stated on the label was less than 25%, the claim was considered to be inconsistent with the provisions of Standard 1.3.2.
Where a claim is made in relation to the presence of a vitamin or mineral in a food, the average quantity of the vitamin or mineral in 100 g (or 100 mL) of the food must be provided. The label must also include a statement of the proportion of the RDI of that vitamin or mineral contributed in one serving of the food. Alternatively, it must state the average quantity of the vitamin or mineral for which an ESADDI has been prescribed (in the Food Code) in a serving of the food. If either of these two statements is an entry in the NIP, the average quantity of the vitamin or mineral in a serving of the food must also be specified.
In the current survey, where this information was not represented correctly on a label, the claim was considered to be inconsistent with the requirements of Standard 1.3.2.
For example, the following claim on a label for frozen vegetables implies the presence Vitamin C:
‘Research indicates that many frozen vegetables contain the same or higher levels of Vitamin C than most fresh vegetables which are sold under normal commercial conditions.’
The label was therefore required to specify the amount of Vitamin C in 100g of the product, in addition to the appropriate RDI or ESADDI information contributed per serving of the product.
c) Other standards within the Food Code
Other Standards of the Food Code that were used in the assessment of claims in the current survey included Standard 2.9.1 – Infant Formula Products, Standard 2.9.2 – Food for Infants, Standard 2.9.3 - Formulated Meal Replacements and Formulated Supplementary Foods and Standard 2.9.4 – Formulated Supplementary Sports Foods. Any mandatory statements required by these or other Standards within the Food Code were not considered a health or nutrition claim.
d) Fair Trading legislation
The fair trading legislation in Australia and New Zealand prohibits false, misleading or deceptive representations about food. For the current survey, the majority of claims assessed against fair trading legislation related to claims that a food was ‘free’ of certain nutrients or substances. If an amount of this nutrient or substance was listed in the NIP or referred to on any part of the label, the claim was assessed as inconsistent with the fair trading legislation of the country the label was collected in.
An exception was made for any labels collected in Australia with nutrition claims made according to the provisions of CoPoNC whereby claims that a food is free of a certain nutrient can be made where finite levels of that nutrient are present in the food.
3.4.2 Nutrition claims on labels collected in Australia
In addition to the requirements of other labelling provisions, labels collected in Australia that made nutrition claims were assessed against CoPoNC requirements.
According to CoPoNC provisions, labels with claims such as ‘96% fat free’ were assessed as inconsistent, as were labels with claims such as ‘97% fat free’ where the NIP stated the product contained more than 3% fat.
Claims made in respect of nutrients which occur at a naturally or intrinsically high or low level in a food must be expressed in terms which make it clear that the claim refers to the whole class of similar foods, and not only to the particular brand of food on which the claim appears. For example, claims such as ‘AMCO Canola Oil is the lowest in saturated fats of all the vegetable oils’ was not consistent with the CoPoNC provisions as it did not refer to the whole class of canola oils. Conversely, claims such as ‘Eta Nuts like all nuts are naturally cholesterol free’ were assessed as consistent with the ‘whole of class’ provisions of CoPoNC.
Nutrition claims which make comparisons with other foods, for example ‘reduced’, ‘increased’, ‘lower’ or ‘more (nutrient) than…’ must be accompanied by a statement on the label which compares the food with a reference food. While the standard requires the comparison statement to appear in close proximity to the claim statements, for the purposes of the current survey, if the information was provided anywhere on the label the claim was considered to be consistent with CoPoNC requirements: The term ‘close proximity’ was not seen to be specific enough to allow accurate and reliable assessment.
If a label carries the words ‘light’ or ‘lite’ in relation to the food, the characteristic which makes the food ‘light’ must be stated on the label, regardless of whether the term is used as a nutrition claim, or whether it applies to some other characteristic of the food. For example, the label of a ‘Light Fruit Cake’ must have a statement saying the term ‘light’ refers to the colour, or the absence of dark coloured spices and dried fruit. In the current survey, when the word ‘light’ referred to other than a nutrition claim or a health claim, then the wording was not counted as a claim made under the provisions of CoPONC.
Where the terms ‘lite’ or ‘light’ are used as part of the name of the food, or used on the label to describe the food, and refers to a nutrient or to the energy content of the food, it is a nutrition claim according to the provisions of CoPoNC. In the current survey, if the ‘lite’ or ‘light’ claim referred to a nutrient or to energy, it was assessed for consistency with the corresponding labelling provisions for ‘reduced’ or ‘low’ claims.
3.4.3 Health claims on labels collected in Australia and New Zealand
All health claims identified in the current survey were assessed against the provisions of the Transitional Standard 1.1A.2, with one label collected in Australia and 6 labels collected in New Zealand identified as inconsistent.
In the current survey it was sometimes difficult to determine at which point a claim in relation to lifestyle and wellbeing was actually referring to a physiological condition, for example ‘To help kids bodies function better, these cornflakes contain vitamins Niacin, Thiamine, Riboflavin, and Folate’. This type of claim was assessed as an enhanced function general level health claim.
Whereas claims such as ‘It is important to remember to keep hearts and bodies healthy by helping your family choose snacks that are low in saturated fat’ were assessed as whole of diet general level claims, others such as ‘Echinacea is believed to reduce the severity and duration of colds’ were assessed as general level health risk reduction claims referencing a non-serious disease.
Standard 1.1A.2 requires that any label on or attached to a package containing or an advertisement for a food shall not include the word ‘health’ or any word or words of similar import as a part of or in conjunction with the name of the food. Despite the brand name sometimes appearing in conjunction with the name of the food on the label, in the current survey brand names containing the word ‘health’ were assessed as consistent with the provisions. Labels with the word ‘health’ in the name of the food were assessed as inconsistent with the provisions of Standard 1.1A.2.
‘Whole of diet’ claims are not always regarded as a health claims. However, in the current survey, where dietary advice was provided on a label without relating specifically to the food, these were assessed as general level health whole of diet claims. An example of a whole of diet claim is as follows:
‘Do you drink enough fluids each day? By following the guidelines of the Healthy Beverage Pyramid, you can ensure that your daily fluid intake, as part of a balanced diet, can be rich in antioxidants and nutrients, and low in saturated fats and empty kilojoules.’
Non-specific general wellbeing claims were also assessed as ‘whole of diet’ claims in the current survey. An example of such a claim is as follows:
‘Iron is an essential component of the diet for everybody. It is vital for our mental and physical well being.’
In the current survey, so-called ‘lifestage’ claims were assessed as general level health claims. An example of such a claim is as follows:
‘The RDI for folate doubles for women the month before and three months following conception.’
Transitional Standard 1.1A.2 of the Food Code currently prohibits claims or statements that a food is a slimming food, or that a food has intrinsic weight-reducing properties. Claims such as ‘lite’, ‘reduced fat’, ‘low joule’ or ‘diet’ were not assessed as slimming or weight reduction claims in the current survey. In addition, brand names such as ‘Weight Watchers’ that do not express any nutrition or health function of the food were not assessed as health or nutrition claims in the current survey.
Whereas all endorsements, symbols and graphics in the current survey were assessed as general level health implied function claims, these claims were recorded under the headings ‘Endorsements’ or ‘Symbols/graphics’, and are additional to the total number of function claims.
3.4.4 Health claims on labels collected in New Zealand
Labels collected in New Zealand labelled as dietary supplements were assessed against the labelling provisions set out in the NZDSR. Some foods sold as dietary supplements are also covered under the Food Code, for example, sports foods and protein powders.
However, since the NZDSR does not prohibit health claims, some claims that were assessed as inconsistent with the requirements of Standard 1.1A.2, were assessed as consistent with the provisions of NZDSR.
3.5 Limitations of the survey
Some of the limitations of this survey are outlined in the final report for the pilot Label Monitoring Survey (Phase 1, Stages 1 and 2), including those introduced in the sampling process.
i) Sampling bias
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 pro