[imagesource:unsplash/philaicken]

The Department of Health has recently released a massive 238-page document for public comment, which will detail all proposed changes to food labelling in our stores.

The proposed Regulations Relating to the Labelling and Advertising of Foodstuffs will cover a lot of familiar territories, but it is some of the new labelling requirements that have raised a few eyebrows. Trendy labelling like ‘superfood’ or ‘intelligent ingredients’ is being targeted, along with terms such as ‘wholesome’ and ‘nutritious’.

Some of the changes seem a bit unnecessary, but then again I did recently see candy with the world ‘health’ on it.

As part of an overhaul of naming changes, the regulations propose that descriptors like ‘intelligent’ and ‘smart’ be prohibited from labelling, along with terms like “wholesome”, “nutritious”, “nutraceutical” or “super-food”.

We also have no idea what nutraceutical means. Foods with labelling that imply they are better or superior in any way are also in the firing line.

Also being considered for scrapping are endorsements from celebrities on product wrappers, as well as testimonial endorsements from organisations and medical practitioners. No more smiling Patricia Lewis on your hair dye box, and Tim Noakes will have to settle for a slogan along the lines of ‘It’s food. Eat it.’

Government is usually very tone-deaf when it comes to regulations, and quite how this will affect smaller, speciality food producers, is to be guessed.

The amendments follow a recent proposal to also ban the advertising of tobacco-related products, including e-cigarettes, in its entirety. This would mean that your local shop will not be allowed to display any tobacco products or adverts at all. Cigarettes will have to be removed from public view, and if you want a packet of Lucky Strikes, it will have to be retrieved from a hidden shelf somewhere in the shop.

The idea reminds me of buying condoms back when I was a teenager. Somewhere in the backrooms of Archie’s Pharmacy, there was a packet of Durex with your name on it. All you had to do was ask your English teacher’s husband to retrieve it for you. I still get a cold sweat just thinking about it.

Some have welcomed the proposed changes to labelling, arguing that there needs to be more honesty and transparency with our product labelling.

As part of the changes, the department is proposing that food items that are high in sugar and fat content come with warning labels attached.

This seems a good idea. The department is also looking towards the future as alternatives to meat are becoming widespread. Labelling in future will not be allowed to have the word ‘meat’ in it unless the product contains at least 25% meat.

The relevant foodstuffs must display logos on the front of the package – and they will have to cover 25% of the front of the package.

Products which carry these labels may not be marketed to children, and may not make any claim with an energy, health or nutrition message – irrespective of whether their nutritional profile passes the Nutrient Profiling Model used to determine as such.

The new rules are going to be an issue for some of South Africa’s snack manufacturers as some of our favourite potato chips, sodas and nearly all the cereal brands fall foul of the changes. The department has taken a hardline approach to what it terms the ‘abuse of family values’ in product packaging, such as portraying a happy smiling family on products that certainly do not contribute to health and happiness.

Some of the changes are surely needed, but with the regulations as prescribed in the document, the government will have opposition from producers and their marketing teams. How do you convince people that your vegan crackers taste better than other vegan crackers if they all taste like cardboard and you can’t lie on the packaging?

Government and their blerrie rules.

[source:btech]