Food labelling rules in NZ

Forums › Off topic › Food labelling rules in NZ

ottenpat

73 posts

Master Geek

#114145 10-Feb-2013 12:26

Hello
This pack of sausages came home in the shopping tooday from PacknSave GI this morning. You will note the label clearly is advertising as Premium and 95% Fat free yet when I look at the nutritional panel it says 6% fat.

I do not think it is actually legal to falsely advertise like this. I would have thought a store like PacknSave would known better or have the PacknSave marketers got a loophole I am not aware off.

Patrick

[URL=http://www.pingtest.net][IMG]http://www.pingtest.net/result/4562042.png[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=https://www.speedtest.net][IMG]https://www.speedtest.net/result/635985797.png[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=https://www.speedtest.net][IMG]https://www.speedtest.net/result/636008376.png[/IMG][/URL]

This is a filtered page: currently showing replies marked as answers. Click here to see full discussion.

ottenpat

73 posts

Master Geek

#759222 10-Feb-2013 22:06

John2010:
networkn:
mattwnz:
networkn:
mattwnz: Make a complaint to the commerce commission. Last time I did they followed it up with the manufacturer.

Over a 1% fat difference? Seriously, would he or she have opted not to buy it if it had said 6% fat?

Give me a break, let the commerce commission deal with stuff that actually matters. If it had been 5% off, sure.

It isn't your determination to make, as to whether it is important enough, based on just a 1% difference. That is also only the stated amounts, not what the actual amounts are if the meat is tested, which could be well within the 95% figure, so the labeling maybe correct. They will decide if they want to follow it up or not. I am however saying that it should be reported to, because if noone reports problems, no matter how small you may think they are, no one will ever know. There are labeling standards for a reason.
The manufactuers may also not be happy that their product could be possibly being misrepresented, so maybe they could contact the manfacturer instead about the additional label applied to the product..The fact that the OP has posted in here and spent time doing so shows they weren't happy about it.

Just because someone posts online about something, doesn't make their claim automatically valid. I am a tax payer, therefore my opinion on what constitutes a reasonable use of taxpayer money is just as valid as anyone elses who pays tax. With Cities to rebuild and unemployment to worry about, this seems beyond petty to spend resources on. Involving a governing body to resolve what should be raised with the retailer or manufacturer in the first instance, is mind boggling.

Not only are they promoting wasting taxpayers money by referring a very petty matter to the authorities, they are also increasing the future demands on the health budget by spending their sedentary lives with their noses in a monitor, even through the afternoon of a sunny, summer's Sunday afternoon, pontificating about a 1% difference in fat content between two labels.

Perhaps they should get out more and burn some fat?

As you would have seen in my previous post later this afternoon. I am not reporting it to authorities(I have never said anything of the sort). I still have them. I am not taking them back. I am still think they are good nutritionally and I am still going to eat them. I was just pointing out this non complaint with NZ labelling rules and large stores like P&S should be experts and know better. If I am going to be accused of being sedentary and that I should get out more and burn fat then I think I am not sure I will post again.

I will make the topic as answered.

Patrick

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28

#761637 13-Feb-2013 11:40

NonprayingMantis: I always thought there was a margin of error allowed for in these kind of labels, like with weights.

a bag that states 1kg of potatoes can have + or - x% since it is virtually impossible to get a perfect measure every time.

You are showing some good sense :-).

For the Nutritional Information Panel the requirement is that the quantity is an "average".

"Average" can be determined by the manufacturer's analysis, calculation from the average or actual quantity of the nutrient or calculation from data that is generally accepted. As far as I know there is no other guidance as to the statistics such as standard deviation.

gzt:

For ingredients comprising 5% or more, rounding is to 1%; for ingredients less than 5% rounding is to 0.5%, that rounding being applied to the average which we all, well some of us anyway :-), know is itself subject to deviation.

So in the case of a claim of 5% for an ingredient, the actual can be more than 1% different and, of course, vary from pack to pack.