Food labelling rules in NZ

Forums › Off topic › Food labelling rules in NZ

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

29028 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#759042 10-Feb-2013 16:29

blackjack17: Good god, you are talking about 1g of fat here.

It is hardly false advertising, it's an incorrect label, it happens, and if you do file with the commerce commission I hope they prosecute for wasting the court's time.

The issue is laziness on behalf of the store - it's nothing to do with 1g of fat.

mattwnz

16360 posts

Uber Geek

#759053 10-Feb-2013 16:53

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.

networkn

22690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#759057 10-Feb-2013 16:57

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.

ottenpat

73 posts

Master Geek

#759071 10-Feb-2013 17:22

sbiddle:
blackjack17: Good god, you are talking about 1g of fat here.
It is hardly false advertising, it's an incorrect label, it happens, and if you do file with the commerce commission I hope they prosecute for wasting the court's time.

The issue is laziness on behalf of the store - it's nothing to do with 1g of fat.

I just wanted to clear something up as the topic starter. I posted because I thought there was something not right and actually I believed in was non compliant with NZ label regulations.

I did not suggest at all that I was going to report it to the Commerce Commission and in fact I did not through my hands up in horror at all even still complimenting the so called non conforming sausage that it was still pretty good at 6%. Someone else suggested this was warranted but I am still quite happy to eat them.

I did not race back to P&S GI with receipt in tow demanding my money back in fact the snarlers are sitting nicely in the freezer for later this week.

The post was to point out a non conformance and really my expectation that a large company like P&S would have all its checks in place for things like this. P&S should really know labelling regulations inside out.

Based on some of the response it does sound like this sort of thing is not uncommon and maybe the Supermarkets just need to be reminded to be more vigilant once and a while. Personally I won’t be the going down there to wave my finger at them.

Patrick

jfanning

409 posts

Ultimate Geek

#759087 10-Feb-2013 17:58

networkn:

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.

I always thought that 6 was 20% more than 5?

mattwnz

16360 posts

Uber Geek

#759102 10-Feb-2013 18:20

ottenpat:

Based on some of the response it does sound like this sort of thing is not uncommon and maybe the Supermarkets just need to be reminded to be more vigilant once and a while. Personally I won’t be the going down there to wave my finger at them.

Patrick

From my experience, they may not do anything if you do anyway. I complained about the accuracy of some of their scales to them directly, and it was never fixed. NZ though is so laid back that people don't tend to complain and unless people complain things don't change.

Alerting a concern though to a regulator though is no more difficult, nor takes any more time, than posting on here, and it is something that is what your tax money goes towards paying for. As per their website, they can choose to follow it up or not, so it is no big deal to do.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#759216 10-Feb-2013 21:47

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?

jfanning

409 posts

Ultimate Geek

#759218 10-Feb-2013 21:54

John2010:
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?

1 percentage point, not 1%, huge difference

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

#759224 10-Feb-2013 22:14

Ottenpat: My comment was not directed at you, as you say you just pointed the difference on the labelling out.

jfanning:
John2010:
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?

1 percentage point, not 1%, huge difference

Yes, I do know the difference but I did think most here would be bright enough to know exactly what was being referred to without me writing a treatise. But apparently it was not so for you.

However, thank you for your unwittingly continuing to demonstrate my point about pedants with their noses stuck in their monitors pontificating over a very trivial matter.

jfanning

409 posts

Ultimate Geek

#759226 10-Feb-2013 22:24

John2010:
Yes, I do know the difference but I did think most here would be bright enough to know exactly what was being referred to without me writing a treatise. But apparently it was not so for you.

However, thank you for your unwittingly continuing to demonstrate my point about pedants with their noses stuck in their monitors pontificating over a very trivial matter.

Yeah, I have my nose stuck in the air, or maybe I think that we should try and use some correct terms once in a while, instead of dropping to the poor educational type comments that stuff etc contain.

mattwnz

16360 posts

Uber Geek

#759227 10-Feb-2013 22:27

John2010:

Perhaps they should get out more and burn some fat?

Pot kettle black. There is no cost involved in just alerting them to a problem, and is no additional wasting of tax payers money in doing so. They can choose to follow up concerns people have. They can also work on the frequency of complaints they get, so the more they get about a particular subject, the more likely they will follow something up if they think they have a strong case. If noone reported problems, then that would end up costing tax payers more, because it would mean more staff would need to go out to actually monitor things in the feild. I can tell you about wastes of tax payer money, and that isn't one of them, and don't get me started on whats happening in chch.

nickd

447 posts

Ultimate Geek

#759230 10-Feb-2013 22:34

Hi guys,

If I might contribute:
To calculate % fat is as easy as 100-g of fat per 100g. No sneaky business.

The packaging by the manufacturer is correct. All that's happened is that P&S has slapped a wrong sticker on it.

Is it a mistake? Yes. Do they do it every time, week after week? No idea. Mistakes happen. How about you take a look next time you're there and see if they've done it again. If they have, have a word with one of the supervisors there, they might not be aware it's happening. Hardly warrants the CC at this point.

Hope this helps.
Nick.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#759231 10-Feb-2013 22:40

jfanning:....instead of dropping to the poor educational type comments that stuff etc contain.

Well, seeing as you are seeking what you regard as perfection, from me in the clarity of my posts, may I, in turn, suggest that you work on improving your grammar and punctuation?

I'll leave you to it, I have fat to burn.

mattwnz

16360 posts

Uber Geek

#759233 10-Feb-2013 22:45

nickd: Hi guys,

If I might contribute:
To calculate % fat is as easy as 100-g of fat per 100g. No sneaky business.

The packaging by the manufacturer is correct. All that's happened is that P&S has slapped a wrong sticker on it.

Is it a mistake? Yes. Do they do it every time, week after week? No idea. Mistakes happen. How about you take a look next time you're there and see if they've done it again. If they have, have a word with one of the supervisors there, they might not be aware it's happening. Hardly warrants the CC at this point.

Yes by itself, it probably doesn't warrant it. But as I said, it depends on the frequency it happens, which the only way to tell, is how many people report such similar problems. And the only way to report problems independently, is through the cc, where they can table peoples reports.

People may say the same thing about reporting bad drivers on the road to the police, and could be why many now don't bothers to report them. These days I must admit that I don't tend to bother apart from the really bad ones, as there are so many of them, and it takes such a lot of time and effort to do so.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4