Monthly Archives: May 2022

“The guideline of additive labeling for use of ‘non-use'” released (Japan)

“The guideline of additive labeling for use of ‘non-use'” was released by the Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA) on March 30, 2022. The main changes from the content of “[Material 2] Revised and reflected version of the guideline” (revised draft after inviting opinions) used at “The 8th discussion about the guideline of additive labeling for use of ‘non-use’ ” (March 1, 2022)” are shown here (underlined in red).

(5) This guideline is a summary of specific items concerning non-use labeling of food additives that should be taken into consideration so as not to mislead consumers. They do not uniformly prohibit non-use labeling of food additives. This guideline can be used by food-related business operators, etc. to conduct self-inspection to determine whether or not any of their labels correspond to prohibited labeling items stipulated in Article 9 of Food Labeling Standards.

The rest is the same as the revised draft after inviting opinions, but I would like to summarize the outline of the guideline this time again.

Type items of labeling for non-use additives

Types 1 to 10 of non-use labeling are as follows. (Excerpt from the explanation and examples of the guideline.)

Type 1

Mere “not added” labeling

e.g. Out of mere “Not added” labels”, what is not added is not clear to consumers
Type 2

Labeling terms not stipulated in Food Labeling Standards

e.g. Terms such as “artificial”, “synthetic”, “chemical”, “natural”, etc. are used along with “not added” or “non-use” such as “No artificial sweeteners”, etc.
Type 3

Labeling on foods with use of additives not permitted by the regulation
e.g. 1 Soft drink labeled “No sorbic acid used”( use of sorbic acid in soft drinks violates the standards for use)

e.g. 2 Food with a name specified in Appended Table 5 of Food Labeling Standards, when a specific additive is used, labeling as “not added” or “non-use” of additives that fall outside the definition of Appended Table 3 of the Standards
Type 4

Labeling on foods with food additives having same function / similar function　
e.g. 1 Labeling “No preservatives used” on foods with food additives other than preservatives for enhancing shelf life

e.g. 2 Labeling “No XX colour” used (XX colour is listed in the Designated additive colouring list in Japan ) on food with Existing additives colouring (listed in natural colouring list in Japan)
(Claims must not be used if an additive has been replaced by another one that gives the food an equivalent characteristic except that this fact is conspicuously stated to the same degree in the claim).
Type 5

Labeling on foods with ingredients having same function / similar function
e.g. 1 Labeling “no seasonings as additives used” on foods with extracts containing amino acids as an (non-additive) ingredient
e.g. 2 Labeling “no emulsifier used” on foods made from highly processed ingredients with emulsifying properties

(Substituting with a substance that is considered to lose its original scientific identity as a food by extracting only specific component from the food is different from substituting with a substance that is considered as food in terms of social norms.) In the case where “non-use” labeling is present and indications of ingredients with the same function / similar function are not present, there is a risk of misleading about the content as consumers may misunderstand that the function of the food is due to the function of another food.
Type 6

Labeling associating with health and safety
e.g. 1 Labeling “not added” or “non-use” for being good for health

e.g. 2 Labeling “not added” or “non-use” for being safe
Type 7

Labeling associating with something other than health and safety
e.g. 1 Labeling “not added ” or “non-use” for good tastes
(The case where a causal link between the reason for the good taste and the absence of food additives cannot be explained)
e.g.2 Without mentioning “after opening the package,” the label states, “No preservatives used, so please consume as soon as possible”
(When the indication gives an impression that the food must be consumed earlier than its best before date.)
e.g. 3 Labeling “no colouring used” as the reason for the possibility of discolouration of the product

(The case where no explanation can be given as to the relationship between the discolouration and the use of colouring)
Type 8

Labeling on foods with use of additives not expected
e.g.1 A food product of the same type that is generally free of colouring and has the original colouring of the food is labeled as “No colouring used”

e.g. 2 Labeling “non-use of the additive” on foods in which use of the certain additive is uncommon among similar products and in which use of it is not expected by consumers such as
-use of preservatives in mineral water
-use of colouring in mineral water
,etc.
Type 9

Labeling on food with a processing aid or carry-over (or cannot be confirmed not to be used)
e.g. 1 Labeling “No preservatives used” on a final product with a part of ingredients used containing preservative
e.g. 2 Labeling “not added” or “non-use” with the indication that the verification of labeling is based only on the product manufacturer’s own manufacturing process because the whole manufacturing process of each ingredient cannot be confirmed

(As for labeling of food additives, checking the use of the food additives is needed even in manufacturing and processing processes of respective ingredients of the food. There is a risk of misleading the content if the labeling, which is an indication even outside the collective labeling frame, is not based on the results of verification. )
Type 10

Excessive claims
e.g. 1 Labeling “non-use of XX” in prominent colour on many places of a package of a product
e.g. 2 Labeling “Not added” in a big font beside “Preservative, colouring” in a small size on foods with additives other than preservative and colouring used

(Fonts, sizes, colours, terms, etc. that are excessively emphasized in comparison with the labeling in the collective labeling frame. When combined with other type items, it may promote misleading by the other type items.)

At the same time, Food Labeling Standard Q & A (Revision of Process-90 and Deletion of Process- 232) related to the non-use labeling of additives has also been revised.

[Revision] Is it allowed to indicate that food additives are not used, such as “additives are not used at all” or “XX not added” on labeling?

(Answer)
We believe that it is necessary to give careful attention to labeling so as not to mislead consumers.
For example, (omitted)
Points to note in order not to mislead consumers are summarized in the attached “the guideline of additive labeling for use of ‘non-use'”.

[Deleted] (Process -232) Is it allowed to indicate that food additives are not used for a substance other than sugars or salt (sodium) if it is true?

Upcoming schedules

As a review of the labeling, a transitional period of approximately two years (until the end of March 2024) is indicated. In addition, by the application of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations, etc. based on the guidelines, a reduction in non-use labeling is also expected for non-use labeling on websites, advertisements, and other items other than containers and packaging. (Fair Competition Code is also expected to be reviewed.)
As stated in the opinions received on the public comments, “it is difficult to list every example” and “judged as a whole on a case-by-case basis”, the guideline is not intended to provide specific examples, but is positioned as an interpretation of the prohibition on labeling. In many cases, it may be difficult to make a judgment when reviewing labeling, but in such cases, we believe it is important to confirm the issues and solutions of non-use labeling by reading the materials by the discussion of the guideline.

References

Names of marine products in Japan and other countries

The labeling of the name and place of origin of marine products has been taken up as a topic in recent years. In Japan, the labeling of such names is required to be made in accordance with the “The guidelines for the legal product names of seafood”. In other countries what kind of rules are used to make such labeling then? Let us take a look at the cases of the EU, the US, Canada, and Australia/New Zealand.

“The guidelines for the legal product names of seafood” (Japan)

In Japan, the standard Japanese names for fish and shellfish are based on the “The guidelines for the legal product names of seafood” (Attachment, Food Labeling Standards Q&A) in principle. However, if there is a more widely used name for particular species, this name may be used in order to avoid confusion among consumers with the use of unfamiliar standard Japanese names, etc. “(Appended Table　1)” of the guidelines has listed examples of alternative common names and corresponding scientific names in addition to the “Standard Japanese names” of fish and shellfish.

Food Labeling Standards Q&A Attachment The guidelines for the legal product names of seafood (Consumer Affairs Agency)

The scientific names listed with the standard Japanese names can be referred to in determining the labeling name of the marine product, as well as in determining a name that is generally understood for species that does not have standard Japanese names, such as exotic species, together with the name in the country of origin, etc.

A pocket guide to the EU’s new fish and aquaculture consumer labels(EU)

In the EU, the Pocket Guide with the above title issued by the European Commission (see the link below*) specifies the labeling method of marine products. The contents are largely divided into “Unprocessed and certain processed fishery and aquaculture products” and “Other processed fishery and aquaculture products”. Both categories are obliged to indicate their names (names stipulated by acts and regulations as well as names customarily used and general names used for distribution). For the former category, it must be accompanied by their scientific names.
[The former is called “Commercial designation” and the latter is called “Name of the food” respectively for their general names”.]

*A pocket guide to the EU’s new fish and aquaculture consumer labels (European Commission)

The rationale for the above pocket guide comes from the following information by the European Commission.

Commercial and scientific name of the species
Each EU country draws up and publishes a list of the commercial designations accepted in its territory, including accepted local or regional names.

Excerpt: Commercial and scientific name of the species (European Commission)

Scientific names can be confirmed from the following page by the European Commission. By entering Commercial designation, a name of a marine product to be sold, you can search for its scientific name corresponding to that name, which is also linked to the name in the language of each EU member country.

Commercial designations of fishery and aquaculture products (European Commission)

The above search results obtained are in English, but you can refer to the list of Commercial designation/scientific names in European languages, including English, by clicking the following link.

Commercial designations of fishery and aquaculture products: Language (European Commission)

The Seafood List (USA)

In the US, The Seafood List by the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) indicates the “Acceptable Market Name” (a name accepted by FDA as not to be mistaken for other types of seafood for labeling), “Common Name” (a name used by ichthyologist and fisheries experts to identify the type of seafood), and the scientific name of each seafood product.

The Seafood List (FDA)

According to the explanation on this site and the following site, basically “Acceptable Market Name” is indicated, but there are some types of marine products that use “Common Name” as their name. The scientific name itself can be labeled only as reference information to confirm that the labeled name is appropriate, and is not required to be labeled as in the EU.

Guidance for Industry: The Seafood List (FDA)

CFIA Fish List (Canada)

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) lists common names for each scientific name in English / French in the CIFA Fish List and recommends that these names be indicated. Names not on this list may be indicated as far as an inspection is conducted to ensure that they do not lead to false or misleading labeling.
Please refer to the following site.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)

Food Standards Code by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) does not define names for fish.
However, the seafood industry in Australia has worked with Standards Australia, the non-government, not-for-profit standards organisation, to develop an Australian Fish Names Standard which provides guidance on standard fish names to be used.
For New Zealand, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) website provides Maori names and scientific names for each fish species.
According to the FSANZ website, there are a free call of consulting services for Australia and New Zealand respectively in the case (from the FSANZ website)
“Sometimes fish may be incorrectly identified at capture or wholesale, and the mistake carries on through the supply chain to consumers. To ensure you’re getting what you paid for, find a reputable fishmonger/restaurant. If you’re concerned that fish may be mislabelled, then contact the supplier in the first instance. If you are dissatisfied with the explanation or response…”. For more details, please check the link below.

Fish names (FSANZ)

The above is a review of cases in the EU, the US, Canada, and Australia/New Zealand regarding the labeling of names of marine products. I believe that it is a common theme in all countries to label fish and shellfish with correct and easy-to-understand names to avoid misunderstanding when similar or identical names are associated with multiple species. We hope that this information will be of some help to those who handle marine products in their import and export processes.

Newsletter Signup

We issue monthly e-newsletters, which provide you with the latest updates on food labeling/regulations in Japan.
If you want to make sure to not miss any issue, please click below.

Related Service

Research Services on Ingredients & Food Labeling -For the Japanese Market-
We verify the conformity of ingredients and additives with the standards for use in Japan based on specifications such as formulation lists. We also verify the conformity of the proposed labeling of ingredient names, nutrients, etc. with the labeling standards based on specifications such as formulation lists.