• Like
ASEAN Nutrition Labelling & Packaging Standards 2012
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

ASEAN Nutrition Labelling & Packaging Standards 2012

  • 563 views
Published

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
563
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. CASE STUDY 1:Nutrition Labelling &Packaging Standards- Dr Roger Bektash- Ms Cyndy Au
  • 2. Nutrition Labelling & Packaging Standards Dr Roger Bektash
  • 3. VISION FOR ASEAN Products made for one ASEAN country can be sold in other ASEAN countries Efficient Supply Chain Benefits to local & regional economy - scale up & efficient manufacture - increased trade Benefits for consumers in all countrieswww.foodindustry.asia What’s this got to do with Nutrition Labelling? 4
  • 4. LABELLING COMPLEXITY - A MAJOR BARRIER Common labelling standards are needed for common information (as in EU) • Unique Labelling requirements – goes beyond local language requirements • There are unique National formats, tolerances or standards for the same information • Currently dictating Individual country labels, or complexity and limiting the information providedwww.foodindustry.asia 5
  • 5. NUTRITION LABELLING Nutrition Labelling is either Mandated or the format is prescribed by most ASEAN countries - Nutrition Information Facts Panel Increased Voluntary Information or Claims - “Good Source of Fibre” - “Reduced Salt”, and - Front of Pack “GDA”www.foodindustry.asia However there are many challenges ........ 6
  • 6. CHALLENGE 1 Variance in Mandatory & Voluntary requirements • Malaysia – mandatory nutrition labelling on many foods • Indonesia – required on fortified foods • Singapore – required on foods making nutrient claims • Philippines – the nutrition information format requires specific measurement unitswww.foodindustry.asia Confusing 7
  • 7. CHALLENGE 2 Differing min & max limits for vitamins & minerals To meet local standards, one Singaporean manufacturer needs to: • Make four different formulations for the same product to supply 8 ASEAN markets • And have different analytical testing limits & requirements for several marketswww.foodindustry.asia Adding Complexity & Costs 8
  • 8. CHALLENGE 3 Variance in Tolerance levels for nutrients • A common recipe across multiple countries faces differing tolerances for nutrients • Most ASEAN countries require products to contain at least 80% of the declared nutrient (as per Codex), but some impose further restrictions - more stringent if fortified - first consignment vs. subsequent shipments - Nutrients claimed on the front vs. in the NIP on backwww.foodindustry.asia Inconsistent
  • 9. CHALLENGE 4 The daily reference values for nutrients vary • Indonesia, Thailand & the Philippines require the %RDA to be stated for each nutrient in the NIP; Malaysia adopts %NRV from Codex • But these reference values vary between the countries, making a common NIP label impossiblewww.foodindustry.asia A disincentive to voluntary nutrition information 10
  • 10. RECOMMEND DAILY INTAKE VALUE FOR IRON IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIESwww.foodindustry.asia Consumers don’t receive nutrition information 11
  • 11. BENEFITS OF HARMONISATION Nutrient values, tolerances and labelling • Cost efficiencies for manufacturers, trade, consumers and governments • Clarity of information for Consumers • Increased product availabilitywww.foodindustry.asia 12
  • 12. EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE Reluctance to Invest Capital Where regulation is fragmented and marketing opportunities are constrained ASEAN needs: Common labelling standards for common informationwww.foodindustry.asia 13
  • 13. Nutrition Labelling & Packaging Standards Ms Cyndy Au
  • 14. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR HARMONIZATION SPECIFIC RECENT EXAMPLESwww.foodindustry.asia 15
  • 15. EXAMPLE 1: NON-HARMONIZATION OF NIP Malaysia’s format only After: MY, SG, PH, HK, BRwww.foodindustry.asia 16
  • 16. EXAMPLE 2: SPEED OF CODEX ADOPTION • Regulatory Circular issued with ONE MONTH to comply. • Required : Detailed mapping of labels for over 400 SKUs from over 10 countries; 40 pages of such tables, 2 month process.www.foodindustry.asia 17
  • 17. EXAMPLE 2: SPEED OF CODEX ADOPTION Impact to business – within one site (Singapore)Example of impact resulting from change in one section of regulationfor qualification of Vegetable Oil/Fat to one of the following:1. Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil/Fat2. Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil/Fat3. Non-Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil/Fat Total Number of SKUs 296 Total Number affected of SKUs 117 Implementation: 3 types of stickers with dimensions: 50mm (L) x 5mm (H) 1. Vegetable Oil/Fat is Hydrogenated 2. Vegetable Oil/Fat is Partially Hydrogenated 3. Vegetable Oil/Fat is Non-Hydrogenatedwww.foodindustry.asia 18
  • 18. EXAMPLE 2: SPEED OF CODEX ADOPTION Cost and resource impact (sticker solution) = S$364k BRAND NO. OF MONTHLY MONTHLY ANNUAL ANNUAL MTHS TO 2012 QTY 2012 COSTS SKUS QTY COSTS QTY COSTS STICKER A 21 190,801 $6,010 2,289,611 $72,123 AU – 12 1,939,831 $61,105 MY – 4-8 B 3 47,232 $1,488 566,784 $17,854 5, 12 452,712 $14,260 (Crumbs) C 22 137,028 $18,932 1,644,336 $227,189 12 1,644,336 $227,189 D 2 11,652 $367 139,824 $4,404 5 58,260 $1,835 E 8 84,678 $2,667 1,016,136 $32,008 12 1,016,136 $32,008 F 11 50,026 $1,576 600,312 $18,910 12 $600,312 $18,910 G 3 40,236 $1,267 482,832 $15,209 12 482,832 $15,210 H 3 27,000 $851 324,000 $10,206 12 324,000 $10,206 J 7 44,736 $1,409 536,832 $16,910 12 536,832 $16,910 K 5 129,348 $4,074 1,552,176 $48,894 12 1,552,176 $48,894 L 9 66,354 $2,090 796,248 $25,082 12 796,248 $25,082 M 12 133,596 $4,208 1,603,152 $50,499 12 1,603,152 $50,499 N 6 25,942 $817 311,301 $9,806 12 311,301 $9,806 P 5www.foodindustry.asia 18,828 $593 225,936 $7,117 12 225,936 $7,117 19 TOTAL 117 1,007,457 $31,735 12,089,480 $380,819 11,544,064 $363,638
  • 19. EXAMPLE 3: NET WEIGHT LABELLING NEW REQUIREMENT ONE COUNTRY New regulation requires either “net wt.” or “e” Interim solution to address a “non-quality” issue for ONE sku Product Cost of Cost of Cost of Labelling Carton per month Labelling Labelling per unit imported to per unit per unit (SGD Singapore per 6 per 1 0.0306) per months year Description month A 500 $428 $2,570 $5,141 B 500 $428 $2,570 $5,141 C 500 $428 $2,570 $5,141 D 500 $3,305 $19,829 $39,658 E 500 $3,305 $19,829 $39,658 Total 2500 $7,895 $47,369 $94,738www.foodindustry.asia 20
  • 20. NEGATIVE IMPACTS Consumers Manufacturers Regulatory agencies • Over cluttered • 3 languages on • Resource and time food label NIP, ingredients list companies seek Longer ingredients advice to comply, • Compromised declaration e.g. clarify on different readability non-hydrogenated interpretations of fat, specific food regulations • Stickers – conditioners, perception of nutrients, E codes misleading • Cost of printing, resources cost especially to train and hire regulatory affairs professionals. How can we reduce these negative impacts for regulators,www.foodindustry.asia manufacturers and consumers? 21
  • 21. EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE Reluctance to Invest Capital Where regulation is fragmented and marketing opportunities are constrained ASEAN needs: Common labelling standards for common information So what do we want to do about it ?www.foodindustry.asia 22
  • 22. WAY FORWARD Regulatory agencies and industry both want clear regulations & standards for labelling and claims. ASEAN needs: Common labelling standards for common information 1. How can industry contribute to the development of national regulations in the region harmonized toward Codex standards? 2. How can food industry create a level playing field in implementation of harmonized regulations by MNCs and SMEs?www.foodindustry.asia 23