Labelling moves strike ‘healthy’ opposition

THE NEW move by the Department of Health to control the often-outrageous claims made for what it terms “non-essential” foodstuffs has gone into limbo, according to Jenny Pienaar, partner of lawyers Adams and Adams. The apparent problem, she told FTW, was that the drafted amendments to the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act had an appendix that defined what the department considered “non-essential” – and were foodstuffs for which you could not make nutritional claims. This was a two page listing of what are defined as “foodstuffs not considered essential for a healthy diet” – and refused the manufacturers of these products the right to make any health or nutritional claims in their labelling or advertising. It is aimed at what many describe as “junk foods”, and includes the likes of chocolates, sweets, chewing gum, soft drinks and other defined beverages, fruit nectars, biscuits, cakes, certain savoury fast foods, sugars, syrups, creamers, dry soups, flavoured fat spreads or margarines, commercially-prepared pies and sausage rolls, “health” bars, jellies, desserts, chips, and dips. Pienaar told FTW that the reaction from industry was vociferous – with large numbers of companies claiming that this listing could be seen in the public eye as suggesting that their types of products were actually “unhealthy”. It appears that the department of health has taken heed, and, according to Pienaar, a final decision has been made that this Annexure 6 is not going to be part of the legislation At the same time, she added, the department has had to once again sit down and decide exactly what legislation it wants – and that this has delayed the kick-off of the legislation for some time.