kpearce - Agenda 8 Public Analysts' Report Appendix B：kpearce议程8公共分析师和# 39;报告附录B

Agenda Item 8 Public Analysts’ Report Appendix B Z09376 16/08/2010 Raspberry pop mica I 01 Additives The samples consisted of brightly coloured fine powders. The material safety data sheets supplied indicated that each consisted of a mixture of mica, titanium dioxide, tin oxide and an iron oxide pigment. Titanium dioxide is a permitted food colour (E171). The iron oxide pigments are each covered by the definition of the permitted colour E172. No information is available to me to suggest that either mica or tin oxide present a toxicological risk when ingested though mica can be irritating if the dust is inhaled. Both are inorganic compounds which are stable and chemically quite inert. As such, neither is likely to cause adverse effects if consumed. Bearing in mind the very small quantities of these products likely to be consumed, the products are likely to be safe for their intended use. Nevertheless, mica and tin oxide are not normally used in food or consumed as food and could, therefore, be considered to be novel foods which would require specific authorisation prior to their use in food. Z09377 16/08/2010 Blueberry pop mica I 01 Additives As above Z09378 16/08/2010 Lemon drop pop mica I 01 Additives As above Z10564 07/09/2010 glucose (dextrose powder) I 01 Additives The labelling of this sample included a number of non-authorised health claims relating to stress, convalescence, loss of appetite, listlessness and travel sickness. Z12573 06/10/2010 White bread cakes - poppy I 03 Bread Current FSA guidelines for salt in bread are for an average of 1.1 gram of salt per 100g. The sample contains 34% more than the target average. Z12575 06/10/2010 Baby traditional rye bread I 03 Bread Current FSA guidelines for salt in bread are for an average of 1.1 gram of salt per 100g. The sample contains 31% more than the target average. Z10565 07/09/2010 ginger biscuits I 04 Flour and flour products The ginger ingredient was not accurately described in the ingredient list. The Food Labelling Regulations 1996 requires that the name used for any ingredient in a list of ingredients shall be a name which, if the ingredient in question were itself being sold as a food, could be used as the name of the food. To comply with this requirement the ginger should described as dried ground ginger. Since only a small amount of Investigations on-going Investigations on-going Investigations on-going Business advised on changes required, label changed Business informed of results Business informed of results Business advised on changes required 1 Agenda Item 8 Public Analysts’ Report Appendix B ginger is present as a flavouring, there is no requirement to quantify the amount being added. Z11328 16/09/2010 shortbread bites I 04 Flour and flour products The name of the food and the durability indication were not in the same filed of vision as required by Regulation 39 of the Food Labelling Regulations 1996. The name of the food \quality of the food as the dairy fat is a minor component of the total fat present. The butter ingredient does not have a QUID, contrary to the requirements of Regulation 19 of the above Regulations. Z11767 23/09/2010 batter mix I 04 Flour and flour products The sample label bore the statement \water\make these foods, they were 2 medium eggs, 400ml -500ml of water, a mixing bowl and balloon whisk. However the instructions on the packaging for making 24 little Yorkshire puddings also include the addition of one teaspoon of oil per pudding in the Yorkshire pudding tins. Furthermore, this amount of oil is included in the nutritional declarations per Yorkshire pudding. The instructions for making pancakes also include the addition of some oil. In my opinion, it is misleading for the packaging not to prominently advise the purchaser that in addition to eggs and water and they will also need some oil when making up batter mix into Yorkshire puddings or pancakes. Z11768 23/09/2010 blueberry muffin mix I 04 Flour and flour products The sample was found to contain 5.6g/100g more fat than declared in the nutritional data, an excess of 66%. As a result of this the energy values were 23% higher than declared. Z12040 28/09/2010 gram flour I 04 Flour and flour products The sample was found to contain 83mg/kg of gluten. The sample label bore the claim that it was “Gluten Free which is particularly good for Diabetics\permitted in foodstuffs bearing the description \containing gluten between 20 -100mg/kg to bear the description \found in the sample was above the maximum limit for a \The sample packet bore a prominent diagram of the India / Pakistan region. Underneath this was the name of the food and the description \Australian split lentils freshly graded and milled in the UK\In my opinion, the depiction of the map of India & Pakistan is likely to mislead the consumer into thinking that the gram flour comes from this region instead of being grown in Australia. Therefore, the pictorial Business advised on changes required Business advised on changes required Business advised on changes required Further samples and analysis to be undertaken 2 Agenda Item 8 Public Analysts’ Report Appendix B depiction is contrary to the requirements of Section 15 of the Food Safety Act 1990, in that it is likely to mislead the purchaser about the substance of the food. Z12627 07/10/2010 Parfitts ginger biscuits I 04 Flour and flour products The labelling of the sample did not comply with the requirements of the Food labelling regulations 1996, in that: the additive bicarbonate of soda was not preceded by the category name \Regulation 34B, requires that any food containing an allergenic ingredient to be clearly labelled with a reference to the name of the allergenic ingredient concerned. The label of this product must indicate that it contains wheat flour or gluten, either in the ingredients list or as an allergen warning. Z15256 17/11/2010 coconut biscuits F 04 Flour and flour products The Food Additives (England) Regulations 2009 require that food containing any of the colours E102 (tartrazine) or E110 (sunset yellow) must include, in their labelling the information \the colour(s)': may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.\The labelling of this product indicated that it contained E102 and E110. The presence of E102 was confirmed by analysis, however, the labelling did not include the above required information. Z15258 17/11/2010 naankhatai F 04 Flour and flour products As above Z12093 01/10/2010 Cleansing herbal tea blend I 07 Coffee and tea The durability indication was prefixed \Regulation 20 of the Food Labelling Regulations 1996. The text on the pack and bottle refers to Flor.Essence? being a secret known only to the North American Native Indians for hundreds of years and to it being a superior traditional herbal formula. The same paragraph includes the words \in the middle part of the 20th century. These two sets of information are not consistent. Z09759 23/08/2010 Snowies - sugar confectionary I 10 Cakes and confectionery The sample label bore the name 'Snowies' without further qualification. The sample had the appearance of white chocolate buttons topped with \powder and sugar. Regulation 8 of the Food Labelling Regulations 1996, requires that the name is sufficiently precise to inform the purchaser of the true nature of the food and to enable it to be distinguished from products with which it could be confused. In my opinion, the name 'Snowies' is insufficiently precise to inform the purchaser of the true nature of the product, a suitable name would be milk flavoured buttons with hundred & thousands, or similar. Advised manufacturer on the correct labelling. Investigations on-going Investigations on-going Business advised on changes required Business advised on changes required 3 Agenda Item 8 Public Analysts’ Report Appendix B Z09760 23/08/2010 Midget gems I 10 Cakes and confectionery The sample label bore the name 'Midget gems' without further qualification. The product consisted of miniature fruit flavoured gums, in my opinion the name of the food is not sufficiently precise to inform the purchaser of the true nature of the product. Z09852 26/08/2010 No sugar added Belgian chocolates sweetened with maltitol-lactitol I 10 Cakes and confectionery The Nutrition and Health Claims (England) Regulations 2007 permit certain specified nutrition claims on foods provided the foods meet the criteria for the claims. The labelling of this sample included the claims 'low glycemic index' and '1g net carbs per chocolate'. The above regulations do not permit any claims in relation to glycemic index or net carbs. The Food Labelling Regulations 1996 require sodium content to be given in units of g per 100g in nutrition labelling rather than mg as used in the labelling of this food. Z10843 09/09/2010 lemon drizzle loaf slice I 10 Cakes and confectionery The sample was found to contain the permitted sorbate preservative, however this was not declared in the list of ingredients as required by regulation 14 of the Food Labelling Regulations 1996. Z12133 04/10/2010 DELICIOUS HEALTHIER CHOCOLATE (LEMON) F 10 Cakes and confectionery The product label bore the name \the name of the product is not sufficiently precise to inform the purchaser of its true nature, as required by regulation 8 of the Food Labelling Regulations 1996. The name should indicate that the product is raw, unprocessed dark chocolate, sweetened with agave nectar. The sample label made the claim \\positively good for you\(England) Regulations 2007, which enacts Regulation (EC) 1924/2006. Claims must be approved by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) from validated scientific data; the claim that raw chocolate is healthy, is not an approved claim and therefore should not be made. The leaflet accompanying leaflet claimed \times as many as green tea, five times as many as blueberries and seven times as many as normal \Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has reviewed the scientific evidence supporting the claimed effects of antioxidants and have concluded that the claim that antioxidants scavenge free radicals are not Business informed of results Business advised on changes required Business advised on changes required Investigations on-going 4 Agenda Item 8 Public Analysts’ Report Appendix B substantiated and therefore should not be made. The display box made the claim \has a low GI)\sugars have not been added to a food may only be made where the product does not contain any added mono- or disaccharides or any other food used for its sweetening properties. In my opinion, agave has been added to this food for its sweetening properties, therefore the \made. The sample label made the claim \made a similar claim and the accompanying leaflet stated \(EC) 1924/2006, lists permitted nutritional claims that can be made on foods, but does not include low glycaemic index (GI) claims. Therefore this claim cannot be made. The accompanying leaflet made the claim \is a natural antidepressant-it's nature's own Prozac!\as having a significant effect on the physiological function of the body, which constitutes a medicinal claim. Regulation 40 and Part 1 of Schedule 6 of the Food Labelling Regulations 1996, prohibits a food from making a claim that it has the property of treating or curing human disease. The ingredient list on the sample packaging was given as \powder, organic raw agave nectar, non-GM sunflower lecithin, organic lemon essential oil\the display box and accompanying leaflet bore the claim \For a food to be described as \processors who are registered and approved by organic certification bodies. All the ingredients must be certified as organic and batches must be traceable. The Organic Products Regulations 2004, requires that the food is labelled with the approval code of the certification body. There was no such code on the label of this product. Z12134 04/10/2010 deliciously healthy chocolate florets F 10 Cakes and confectionery As above Z12565 06/10/2010 fruit salad I 10 Cakes and confectionery The labelling of this product indicates that it contains 90.7g of polyols. The ingredients list includes the polyol, maltitol, but no others. The sample was found to contain only 62.9 g maltitol per 100g indicating that there is a discrepancy in the ingredients declaration and the composition of the product does not agree with that declared. The ingredients list included the category name 'natural colours' followed by 'beetroot, turmeric, paprika'. Investigations on-going Business informed of results 5