Canned fruit and labeling query.

Forums › Off topic › Canned fruit and labeling query.

1 | 2

nickd

447 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 1

#728321 6-Dec-2012 23:30

Think of it like this, the cherries would be white unless they had the colour added to them. So the colour is performing a technological function in the finished product because it's making the cherries red, which is why it needs to be declared.

Taking a general case, if you put an artificial colour into a product, regardless of the concentration, you can't have a no artificial colours claim. There is no way in the FSANZ code you can get around it, no concentration limit, no compound ingredient labelling, no way, no how.

OP, if you want to continue to discuss your product specifically, let us know what it is, otherwise I'm happy to continue with general discussion on the FSANZ code if anyone wants it.

Nick

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28

#728565 7-Dec-2012 14:22

Well, I guess it gets down to a matter of opinion as to what the interpretation is (and I am not stating mine, just stating the possibilities based on what sounds sensible to me). When one looks at the whole gambit of food legislation it seems not to be sensible to suggest that a carry over additive in a compound ingredient has to be declared regardless of how low its concentration in the final product. After all, concentrations of very toxic substances are allowed in foods at low levels with no need for anyone to tell us so at all; there is no requirement for them to be non existent; good sense prevails.

And I have not found anything for NZ and Australia on strict interpretation of technological function as between its application to the final product or just to its compound ingredients, but the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (different, but similar, legislation, of course) makes it clear that their interpretation of technological function for the case of any carry over additive in a compound ingredient having a technological function on the final product, then it has to have a significant technological function in the final food before it has to be declared in the ingredients list. The various pages on their web site regarding additives and labelling all link back to the page with this statement. This sounds to me as being an attempt to address reality.

For NZ I found this http://www.foodstandards.govt.nz/consumerinformation/labellingoffood/ingredientlistsandpe5592.cfm , which states that as long as the 5% weight threshold for a compound ingredient is met then its own ingredients can be ignored as far as the final products ingredients list is concerned (except for the allergenic ones they refer to). But this is consumer information, not an interpretation of how the code is applied.

But whichever way one looks at it, the amount of 127 in a few cherries in a can of fruit salad is going to be very, very small when diluted into the final product and anyone getting worked up over the interpretation of the labelling of such a can will be regarded, in camera, as having unrealistic expectations, or as having parallel objectives such as those aligned to getting chickens the right to vote in parliamentary elections

.

Anyway, I hunted out a range of canned fruit salad products to see what their labelling stated. All those listing cherries declared that content but none stated the weight (I did not open the cans so it may be that some that contained cherries but were just bundled under the general description "Fruit", which all listed, covered them. All of those listing cherries declared the colour additive 127 against them, that even for all the Heinz Wattie products of which there were 4 examples - this is different to the original poster's observation of the colour being declared as 120 for a H-W can he had.

All made various claims of containing no additives of various specific types e.g. no added flavourings, no preservatives, etc., in an impressive list of the type that might sedate the worrying type consumer (and maybe mislead such a consumer into thinking there were none), but no manufacturer specifically claimed no additives whatsoever. But one manufacturer, of the five I looked at, specifically stated there was no added colour but declared cherries (colour 127) as a compound ingredient in the ingredients list (I assume they were the only ones with the cherries comprising less than 5% of the total

). It may have been that the other manufacturers had more than 5% cherries and so avoided any specific claim of no colour being added.

All products included a contact address for consumers to use, and the ones of complete foreign manufacture also included NZ contact details. In NZ there must be an NZ or Australian contact details on imported foods' packaging for consumers to use to ask questions, this is a food labelling requirement, and I wonder what was on the original poster's product as he seemed to infer there was no such contact address. Except for those of the ilk who want to rush off to the media or the regulators first with a complaint in order to hopefully stir up a hornets nest, my suggestion would be to use the address on the can, to ask the manufacturer (or their local NZ/ANZ representative). That is why the regulators require an address to be put it on the packaging and so could reasonably expect, before going crying to them, to use that first.

Anyway, that is more than enough from me on this subject. Just remember, if you are serving the dessert portions, don't keep all the cherries for oneself

Batman

Mad Scientist
30018 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6218

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#728589 7-Dec-2012 14:46

they can write whatever they want in big bold unless that thing they write about is legislated (even then, some still write) people will lie ... and lie they will

did you know sanitarium soy milk has no soy milk? only a piddly amount of "soy proteins" and the rest "vegetable oil"

mattwnz

20522 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#728616 7-Dec-2012 15:29

John2010:

Anyway, I hunted out a range of canned fruit salad products to see what their labelling stated. All those listing cherries declared that content but none stated the weight (I did not open the cans so it may be that some that contained cherries but were just bundled under the general description "Fruit", which all listed, covered them. All of those listing cherries declared the colour additive 127 against them, that even for all the Heinz Wattie products of which there were 4 examples - this is different to the original poster's observation of the colour being declared as 120 for a H-W can he had.

That is odd because the H-W one I have is definitely colour 120, which is supposed to be a natural colour according to wikipedia. Although it maybe a few years old. So maybe they have changed their suppliers. My main beef with the brand I looked at , not H-W, was that it specifically stated 'no artificial colours when that isn't the case. A colour probably isn't considered an 'Additive' so that is how other companies can get away with saying no artifical additives. I won't name the company as that probably isn't the best thing to do, but I did send the label to the regulators. There was a NZ address on the can, but it was just an importer. They are not made here. Unless people inform them, they probably wouldn't know as there are so many products and they have very limited resources.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28

#728634 7-Dec-2012 15:52

Thanks for the comments back.

Colour 127 is definitely an additive in the code. I think it only gets down to the things that have been mentioned re interpretation with respect to the colour being in an ingredient that is itself a small part of the final product's weight, and so the colour becomes greatly diluted by the final product.

If the labelling on your can proves to be wrong then there are others around too that are the same (like you I won't mention names, but some do nice stuff

).

Let us know the outcome.

1 | 2