Lack of harmonisation in the application of local and international labelling requirements is raising export costs – and in some cases resulting in loss of market share.
The introduction of new labelling requirements by Russia in 2016, for example, has been identified as a prime reason for a significant drop in the volume of fruit exports to the country. Before implementation, 12% of South Africa’s fruit exports were destined for the European country. This figure at one stage fell to 6%.
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Daff) food safety and quality assurance, liquor products manager, Wendy Jonker, told FTW that harmonisation of labelling standards and requirements was key and should remain a priority between governments.
“We continually harmonise legislation with international standards, but it is complicated when each country has its own labelling standards and requirements,” she said. “It’s like chasing a moving target all the time.” She said that one of the largest obstacles to labelling compliance was the sheer magnitude of knowledge required to understand the legislation of each individual country. Jonker pointed out that South Africa currently had labelling agreements with the likes of Argentina, New Zealand, Brazil and especially the European Union – our largest export market.
This not only simplified labelling requirements for exports to these countries but also the logistics and cost of export. In terms of wine exports, Daff has reached an agreement with international export markets on the use of a single label for all mandatory information required on a wine bottle label and packaging for export. Unfortunately, exports to Asia Pacific countries remain constrained due to language barriers which mean that labels need to be translated into Chinese, Taiwanese and so on.
This also drives up the cost of exports and often causes consignments to be delayed at the harbour as a result of non-compliance or differences between documentation and labelling. “Where non-compliance or mislabelling are detected upon entry through Customs, the consignments are delayed for sticker labelling, re-issuing of import clearance documentation, or consignments are rejected,” said Jonker. “All of these have cost implications.”
A spokesperson for the National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications legal metrology department – the institution responsible for inspecting labelling to see that products coming into and manufactured in the country meet the requirements – told FTW that locally produced goods that met export requirements were granted authorisation to use what was known as an “e” mark.
This mark, she said, was a regulated quantity statement that showed international regulatory organisations that the products were compliant with both domestic and international labelling requirements. It assured the international community that what was held within the packaging was exactly what was stated on its labelling. The South African Organic Sector Organisation secretariat, Colleen Anderson, told FTW that mislabelling was rampant in South Africa especially with regard to ‘new age’ labels such as “organic”, “cruelty-free” or “farm-totable”.
She said that while the Consumer Protection Act covered such claims locally, it was not often policed. “In South Africa, there is no organic policy and this is why misleading claims can be made.”
