Author Archives: Hiroyuki Kawai

About Hiroyuki Kawai

Label bank Co., Ltd. CEO (Founder) Born in Japan. Working on solving various issues related to food labeling operations. Also regularly gives lectures for various organizations in Japan. Co-author of 'Latest edition: Guide book Food Labeling Law and related business practical points - from scratch (Japanese version only)' (DAI-ICHI HOKI CO., LTD/2019).

Mandatory allergen labeling for walnuts and others:“Food Labeling Standards”, ”Regarding Food Labeling Standards”, ”Food Labeling Standards Q&A” Revised (Japan)

On March 9, 2023, the Consumer Affairs Agency(CAA) announced revisions to “Food Labeling Standards”, “Regarding Food Labeling Standards”, and “Food Labeling Standards Q&A”. The main revisions include the mandatory labeling of allergens for walnuts and the addition of rapeseed producing EPA / DHA* to the list of specified genetically modified agricultural products**. In this article, we would like to organize the details of the mandatory allergen labeling for walnuts as follows.
(*Please refer to past article for the information on the addition of rapeseed producing EPA / DHA to the list of specified genetically modified agricultural products.)
(**Agricultural products whose composition, nutritional value, etc. are significantly different from those of regular agricultural products because they were produced using recombinant DNA technology. See in the reference “Old and New Comparison table (Food Labeling Standards Q&A(the 15th revision)” pg. 24))

The main points of the revision of “Food Labeling Standards”

Walnuts were added to Appended Table 14, and the number of specified raw materials (mandatory labeling items for allergens in Japan) was changed from seven to eight.

Before the revision (Old)After the revision (New)
Shrimp
Crab
Wheat
Soba (Japanese buckwheat)
Egg
Milk
Peanut		Shrimp
Crab
Walnut
Wheat
Soba (Japanese buckwheat)
Egg
Milk
Peanut

The main points of the revision of “Regarding Food Labeling Standards”

Walnut was removed from the list of “specified raw materials equivalents”(recommended labeling items for allergens in Japan) and the number of items on the new list was changed from 21 to 20 items.

Before the revision (Old)After the revision (New)
Almond, Abalone, Squid, Salmon roe, Orange, Cashew nuts, Kiwifruit, Beef, Walnut, Sesame seed, Salmon, Mackerel, Soybean, Chicken, Banana, Pork, Matsutake mushroom, Peach, Yam, Apple, GelatinAlmond, Abalone, Squid, Salmon roe, Orange, Cashew nuts, Kiwifruit, Beef, Sesame seed, Salmon, Mackerel, Soybean, Chicken, Banana, Pork, Matsutake mushroom, Peach, Yam, Apple, Gelatin

The description of Appended Table 1 (the scope of the definition of specified raw materials) remains unchanged. However, “the scope” of the definition of walnut has been added to Food Labeling Standards Q&A (see below *1).

Specific raw materials, etc.Classification Number (1)Classification Number (2)Broad classificationMedium classificationSmall classification
Walnut698591Drupe-like nutsOther drupe-like nutsWalnut

No labeling examples have been added to Appended Table 2 (Examples of labeling for additives derived from specified raw materials, etc. ), same as before the revision.

name of specified raw materialsClassificationAdditivelabeling of specified raw materialsRemarks
Walnut––––

No labeling examples have been added to Appended Table 3 (substitute declarations for specified raw materials and so on), same as before the revision.

specified raw materials (items stipulated in Food Labeling Standards)Substitute descriptionExtended description
A different description substituting the original by how it is described or words used, but can be understood to correspond to the same specified raw material.Examples of descriptions that include the names of specified raw materials or alternative descriptions so that they can be understood as food products using these ingredients.
Walnut Walnut Walnut bread, Walnut cake

“2.2 Qualitative testing method” now includes the additional descriptions of real-time PCR method and nucleic acid chromatography.

Before the revision (Old)After the revision (New)
Qualitative testing methods include western blotting method and PCR method. Generally, western blotting method is used for egg and milk. As for wheat, buckwheat, shrimp, crab,  and peanut, PCR method is commonly used.
It is acceptable to use a qualitative testing method other than western blotting method or PCR method, however, it shall have the same or more accuracy than those methods.
(Omitted)		Qualitative testing methods include western blotting method, PCR method, real-time PCR method, and PCR-nucleic acid chromatography. Generally, western blotting method is used for egg and milk. On the other hand,
– PCR method is use for shrimp and crab
– PCR method or real-time PCR method is used for wheat, buckwheat, and peanut
– Real-time PCR method or nucleic acid chromatography is used for walnut
It is acceptable to use a qualitative testing method other than western blotting method, PCR method, real-time PCR method, and PCR-nucleic acid chromatography, however, it shall have the same or more accuracy than those methods.
(Omitted)

In relation to this addition, the details of the Qualitative testing methods have been added and the “About the judgment tree” has been changed. If you would like to confirm the test method, you can check them.

The main points of the revision to “Food Labeling Standards Q&A”

Food Labeling Standards Q&A (D-3) regarding the scope of walnut (*1) has been added.

(D-3) What is the scope of “walnut” as specified raw materials?
(Answer) The term “walnut” refers to walnuts stipulated in the Japan Standard Commodity Classification Number 698591, and in addition to the overseas species (Chandler, Howard, etc.) that are mainly distributed, Japan’s species (Amigurumi, Shiurim, Himegurumi, and so on) are also subject to labeling.. Please note that walnut oil, walnut butter (and so on) are also allergens.

Although not included in this article, some additions and changes have been made to Food Labeling Standards Q&A in relation to the “Addition of rapeseed producing EPA / DHA as a specified genetically modified agricultural product (addition to Appended Table 18)”. In addition, Food Labeling Standards Q&A on how to label the Nutrition Facts for “foods sold and usually consumed together in sets”(e.g. a set product of undo (Japanese) noodle and soup) has been added. Please check if you handle related food products.

Period for transitional measures and upcoming schedules

As shown below, the period is until the end of March 2025.

The labeling for processed foods (excluding processed foods for business use) which are manufactured, processed, or imported from the date of enforcement of this the Cabinet Office Ordinance to March 31, 2025 and processed foods for business use which are sold by March, 31, 2025 shall remain applicable notwithstanding the provisions of Appended Table 14 of the Food Labeling Standards revised by said revised provisions.

The revision was made in response to the 2018 Report on the Survey on food labeling regarding food allergy. The report revealed there has been a significant increase in health hazards caused by immediate-type allergies to nuts, particularly walnuts.

The survey conducted in 2021 revealed the cases of allergy have been on the rise since then. So, even during the period for transitional measures, it is important to reconfirm information management, such as ingredient specifications to be able to respond to inquiries from consumers.

References

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.

Report of the discussion on the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations published (Japan)

On January 13, 2023, the Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA) published “the report of the discussion on the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations”.  The report was compiled after 10 rounds of discussions starting in March 2022. The report summarized issues to be considered in the future including the “introduction of Commitment Procedure that allows a business operator to apply for a corrective action plan (see *1 for details)” and “increased surcharges (penalties) for repeated violations” and so on.

This time, I would like to provide you with an overview of the background and summary of these discussions.

Background of the discussions

The purpose of the discussions held in March 2022 was as follows.

The Act on Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations, which aims to ensure an environment in which general consumers can voluntarily and rationally select products and services, was revised in 2014.
The discussions were intended to be held to discuss necessary measures from the viewpoint of securing consumer interests in light of the facts that
-a certain period of time has passed since the enforcement of that revised Act
-changes in the social environment surrounding the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations, such as the progress of digitalization

As for changes in the social environment in Japan, the following are to be considered.
-Electronic commerce has become popular due to the progress of digitization
-Advertisements for electronic commerce have become mainstream on the Internet
-International transactions are also becoming popular

In addition, under the recent operation of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations, it is said that a sufficient number of necessary measures has not been taken for the following reasons.
-The introduction of the surcharge system (that imposes economic disadvantages (penalties) on businesses that misrepresent) has increased the time needed to process cases.
-Despite the fact that triggering cases are on the rise, the number of the cases are not on the rise where sufficient penalty measures are taken In addition to these, the existence of “business operators that repeatedly commit violations” was taken up as one of the background factors for the discussions. The following cases are listed as examples of malicious violations.

<Case 1: Misleading representations concerning the quality/standard of a product or service>
A business operator that sells supplements to the general consumers posted a message on its SNS account as if certain effects could be achieved by taking the supplements. However, as a result of the investigation, the business operator did not have any material showing the grounds to support the indication.

Issues to be considered

The report divides the issues to be considered into two categories;
-those that should be addressed early
-those that should be addressed in the medium to long term
and summarizes them as follows.

1. Issues to be addressed early

(1) Promotion of voluntary efforts (see *1 below) by business operators (introduction of Commitment Procedure)

(2) Promotion of refund measures under the surcharge (penalty) system (utilization of electronic money, etc.)

(3) Strengthening deterrence against violations
(Application of increased surcharge (penalty) calculation rate, estimation of sales amount to be used as basis for calculation of surcharge (penalty), etc.)

(4) Utilization of criminal punishment

(5) Responding to internationalization (How to enforce measures against overseas companies and so on)

(6) Reorganization of concepts related to buy-back services

(7) Cooperation with qualified consumer groups

(8) Coordination with other systems in law enforcement

(9) Cooperation with prefectural governments

(10) Burden of proof, etc. in civil proceedings in relation to advertising content that has not been demonstrated

2. Issues to be addressed in the medium to long term

(1) Expansion of the scope of surcharges (penalties)

(2) Obligation to preserve digital representations

(3) Expansion of the scope of restriction to those who do not meet the supply requirements (“goods or services supplied by the business operator”) (4) Dark pattern (Deceptive design pattern)

Of the above, I would like to point out two points that should be noted by business operators: “introduction of Commitment Procedure that allows a business operator to apply for a corrective action plan” and “increased surcharges (penalties) for repeated violations”. The summary of the report is as follows.

(1) Promotion of voluntary efforts by business operators (introduction of Commitment Procedure)

Under the current Act on Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (snip) even when a business operator unintentionally misrepresents its product and actively tries to take voluntary actions to improve labeling and so on, if a violation is found, the business operator is subject to an order to take actions, etc. Until now, legal actions against cases of misrepresentation have been taken by a measure order or surcharge payment (penalty) order. However, in the case where business operators are expected to be able to reliably handle the situation sufficiently on their own and so on, encouraging the business operators to take voluntary initiatives will result in faster corrections rather than issuing these orders.

In addition, the report also stated that “the Guidelines should clearly state what to do” in case where the Commitment is not fulfilled.

(3) Strengthening deterrence against violations (Application of increased surcharge (penalty) calculation rate, estimation of sales amount to be used as basis for calculation of surcharge (penalty), etc.)

Some business operators repeatedly commit violations even though they have a history of committing violations of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations in the past and receiving an order to take actions or surcharge payment (penalty) order. Since the current system is not a sufficient deterrent for such operators, it is necessary to strengthen the penalty in response in such cases.

In the Act on Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations, (snip) an increased calculation rate should be applied to the business operators that repeatedly commit violations in order to increase the deterrent effect.

In addition, with regard to the issue of calculating the surcharge (penalty) due to “the failure of submitting materials by a violating business operator in the investigation by the Fair Trade Commission and so on” the report stated that “provisions should include a reasonable method to estimate the sales amount, etc. subject to surcharge.”

Upcoming schedules

In response to the suggestions in the report, the CAA will work to revise the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations. If you are in charge of food labeling and, especially, if you handle health foods and other products with health and functional labels, we hope you find this report useful and helpful. Besides, anyone in charge of checking advertisements should read the “Report of on stealth marketing by the discussion group” published on December 28 last year.

References

Discussions on the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (CAA)

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.

Report on mandatory allergen labeling for walnut: The period of transitional measures is until March 31, 2025 (Japan) ~Summary on other future revisions and transitional measures~

On December 13, 2022, a report was submitted in response to a proposal for partial revision of Food Labeling Standards (such as mandatory allergen labeling for walnuts). According to the report, the transitional period from recommended to mandatory allergen labeling for walnuts is March 31, 2025. The partial revision is expected to be promulgated and enforced in the near future. Taking this opportunity, I would like to summarize incoming (and some of recently completed) revisions of the food labeling system and the transitional measures period for the next few years.

Transitional measures period for each revision

The following is a summary of major revisions and their transitional measures including the ones for several years in the past as well as future plans. Some of them have already passed their period of transition, and for some there is not much time left. I would like to summarize them here for your review.

Main revisions (Transitional Measures)
New labeling for countries of origin of ingredients The transitional period ended at the end of March 2022 (ended).
Labeling of additives (removal of the terms, “Artificial” and “Synthetic”) The transitional period ended at the end of March 2022 (ended).
“non-GM” labeling The transitional period will end at the end of March 2023
The guideline of ‘non-use’ labeling of additives (e.g. “No preservatives used”) The transitional period will end at the end of March 2024
Mandatory allergen labelling for walnuts The transitional period will end at the end of March 2025

The partial revision of Food Labeling Standards reported on December 13, 2022, also includes the addition of rapeseed producing EPA and DHA to the list of specified genetically modified agricultural products. In addition, in December 2022, “Matters to be Noted relating to Health Foods under the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations and the Health Promotion Act” was revised.

“non-GM” labeling

The following two revisions were made in April 2019.

The requirements for a “non-genetically modified” labeling will be made stricter, from their current state (i.e. “a rate of unintentional presence of genetically modified soybeans and corn should be equal to or lower than 5%”), to “not detected.”
The case where the contamination rate is 5% or less, voluntary labeling indicating separate production and management is appropriately implemented is allowed.

The revision was made to avoid misleading, based on the opinion that allowing the labeling of “non-GM” on a product with a maximum contamination rate of 5% is misleading.

The main point to note from the revision is that, from April 1, 2023, “non-GM” labeling will be allowed only for soybeans, corn, and processed foods (made from these agricultural products as ingredients) that have been properly sorted and controlled for distribution and are found to be free of the ones genetically modified.

For example, some products (already on the market) containing soybeans (of which separate production and distribution management is properly implemented) have changed their labeling from “Soybeans (non-genetically modified)” to “Soybeans (separate production and distribution management implemented)” or “Soybeans (preventative measures for GM presence taken)” and so on.

The guideline of ‘non-use’ labeling of additives

In March 2022, 10 types of ‘non-use’ labeling of additives to be noted were published.

Type 1: Mere “not added” labeling
Type 2: Labeling terms not stipulated in Food Labeling Standards
Type 3: Labeling on foods with use of additives not permitted by the regulation
Type 4: Labeling on foods with food additives having same function / similar function
Type 5: Labeling on foods with ingredients having same function / similar function
Type 6: Labeling associating with health and safety
Type 7: Labeling associating with something other than health and safety
Type 8: Labeling on foods with use of additives not expected
Type 9 Labeling on food with a processing aid or carry-over (or cannot be confirmed not to be used)Type 10: Excessive claims

Based on the current ambiguous Food Labeling Standards Q&A, some business operators voluntarily put labels such as “XXX-free”. This is probably one of the reasons why some consumers do not understand labels such as “XXX-free” clearly, which was found in the consumer intention survey. Such situation led to establishment of the guideline.

The main point to note according to the guidelines is that the cases where the ‘non-use’ labeling of additives falls under the prohibited labeling items arise not only from being true for the example of each type items directly but also depending on various aspects of the product as a whole such as its property.

In June 2022, the Consumer Affairs Agency published “Educational Flyers and Posters” (with some revisions) and “Illustrations for 10 type items” as supplementary information to the Guidelines, which may also be referred to.

Mandatory allergen labelling for walnuts

Walnuts are to be added to Appended Table 14 (the list of mandatory allergen labeling items) under the partial revision of Food Labeling Standards reported on December 13, 2022.

Appended Table 14 (before the revision) Appended Table 14 (after the revision)
Shrimp
Crab
Wheat
Soba (Japanese buckwheat noodle)
Egg
Milk
Peanuts		 Shrimp
Crab
Walnut
Wheat
Soba (Japanese buckwheat noodle)
Egg
Milk
Peanuts

The revision was made in response to the 2018 Report on the Survey on food labeling regarding food allergy. The report revealed there has been a significant increase in health hazards caused by immediate-type allergies to nuts, particularly walnuts.

The number of cases has been increasing even more in the subsequent survey conducted in 2021.

Substance that causes allergy Classification Fiscal 2012 Fiscal 2015 Fiscal 2018 Fiscal 2021
Walnut Number of immediate allergy cases 40 74 251 463
Number of shock cases 4 7 42 58

The above is a summary of some of the current revisions to the food labeling system and their transitional measures. Particularly, because of the background mentioned above regarding the allergen, “walnut”, Products containing “walnut” but only labeling the current 7 mandatory allergen labeling items would need immediate actions to ensure the compliance of their labels with the new standards.
In the future, we will ensure to any new revision information on food labeling in this column.

Reference

Report (regarding partial revision of Food Labeling Standards) (Japan)

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.

Japan’s System for the Operation of Geographical Indication Protection reviewed

The Geographical Indication (GI) Protection System is a system to protect names of products with properties such as quality and social reputation, and so on that have been nurtured by natural, human, and social factors and environments unique to the region as regional intellectual property. The system has already been introduced in more than 100 countries around the world, and was introduced in Japan in 2015.

What is GI?

Taking the Ichida persimmon (One of the famous varieties in Japan)　as an example, the relationship between “product (place of production and properties)” and labeling is as follows.

Product GI
Place of production Properties

-Only “Ichida persimmon” originated in Takamori-cho, Shimoina-gun (former Ichida-mura) is used.
-The large temperature difference between day and night produces persimmons with high sugar content.
-River fog from late fall to early winter in that area brings excellent temperature and humidity conditions for the production of dried persimmons.
-Slow drying, firm kneading

-“Ichida persimmon” has especially high sugar content.
-Glutinous texture
-Beautiful amber color
-Small in size, easy to eat
-White powder that gives the surface fine smoothness as if it were makeup

 Ichida Persimmon

GI is a registration given to a producer organization for a product and used by its members. The registration details are described in the specification and producer organizations provide their members with the guidance to comply with the production method. One of the features of the system is that the administration will crack down on any illicit use of the GI labeling.

For any illicit labeling found, such as “TROPICAL KOBE BEEF” for the beef from South America on the restaurant’s menu in Spain, “Wagyu ‘Kobe-Style'” labeling for wagyu beef from New Zealand in a supermarket in Germany and so on, EU authorities will be requested to take appropriate measures against such labeling that will be removed by the guidance by the authorities under the framework of mutual protection system with European countries.
The Japanese GI system has focused on ensuring superior quality control to other products, stricter control over the manufacturing process than other products and the strengthening of product brands through the exclusion of imitation products. However, as a result of the gradual tightening of such control operations, GI labeling has been disproportionately implemented on the products mainly from local farms or traditional vegetables with smaller crops and so on, that are organized by region because they are easily differentiated in their quality over other standard products.

Outline on review of the operation

The operation of the GI system has been under review since November 1, 2022. The aim is to further encourage export of products by widening the scope of registration to include not only traditional regional vegetables but also processed products and products for overseas.

The outline of the revision is as follows.

１. Review of evaluation criteria

-Even without differentiated quality, promoting judgement based on the evaluation of the unique and varied properties of the product, such as quality, production method, reputation, and story, which have been nurtured in the natural, human, and social factors and environment of the region
-Flexible judgment about whether or not to register products considering other rules such as the name recognition even without 25 years or more of production experience as required in the current registration rule

２. Review of procedures before and after the registration

-As for genuine GI products which do not harm the interests of consumers who purchase the products, enable continuous use of registered names even with a new name added which divides the original form of registered names (e.g. “Kasumigaseki XX Apple” for the registered name, “Kasumigaseki Apple”) so that such unification with the new name would never hamper the consensus formation on the application
-Promote simplification for compliance items to be followed by producers. As for production process control operations, shift to a method of checking production procedures and systems, rather than final products, by abolishing the annual performance report

３. Expand exposure in the GI market

-Clarify the rules for using the GI mark on GI processed products
-Propel the development and promotion of collaborative products and services with other industries, such as food service, food, and tourism, by utilizing the GI mark effectively

In the GI system in Europe, where processed products account for the majority and many products are also exported, products are valued not for their superiority to other products, but for their unique attractiveness and strengths linked to the region. The review for the Japanese system is aimed at expanding the use of this system by pursuing more simplified procedures, while reviewing the evaluation criteria with reference to such overseas systems.

The labeling and the future of GI products

This operational review will not have a significant impact on food labeling practices themselves. The same points to note regarding Japanese registered GI (122 products**) and foreign GI* (112 products**) protected in Japan remain unchanged.

(* Refer to “Geographical Indication” →”Information on designated GIs” (MAFF’s website) e.g.: Grana Padano (natural cheese)) ** as of Dec.9,2022Taking a look at the revision of the GI system will be useful especially for those who export food products from Japan to overseas. EU is also considering a revision of the GI labeling system to include “sustainability” as a requirement for GI labeling. It would be good to confirm this together with these current trends.

References

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.

Comments invitation on partial revision draft of Food Labeling Standards started ~Addition of walnuts to the list of Specified allergens (mandatory labeling items for allergens) and Addition of rapeseed producing EPA/DHA to the list of specified genetically modified agricultural products~(Japan)

On October 13, 2022, the Consumer Affairs Agency announced the start of invitation for public comment on the “Partial Revision of Food Labeling Standards.” The public comment was closed on November 12.

Summary of the revision

According to the public comment procedure, the outline of the revision draft is as follows.

  1. “Walnut”, which contains a substance that causes allergy, is currently on the list of recommended labeling for allergen. However, the result of the Report on the National Survey of Health Damage Caused by Immediate-type Food Allergy, etc. has led to the policy that labeling is required, and “walnuts” will be added to the list of Specified allergens (mandatory labeling items for allergens in Japan).
  2. In the future, it is expected that foods derived from rapeseed genetically modified to produce eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) will be distributed in Japan after a safety assessment by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Therefore, such rapeseed is to be added to the list of specified genetically modified agricultural products to be labeled under the labeling system for genetically modified foods.

Revision of mandatory allergen labeling items

Allergen labeling is required for “foods containing processed foods made from Specified Allergens (for mandatory labeling items for allergens in Japan) (including those made from said processed foods and excluding those whose antigenicity is not recognized) and additives derived from Specified Allergens (excluding those whose antigenicity is not recognized and flavour).” Appended Table 14, which specifies Specified Allergens, will be revised as follows. (Revised parts are underlined in red letters)

Appended Table 14 (before the revision) Appended Table 14 (after the revision)
Shrimp
Crab
Wheat
Soba (Japanese buckwheat noodle)
Egg
Milk
Peanuts		 Shrimp
Crab
Walnut
Wheat
Soba (Japanese buckwheat noodle)
Egg
Milk
Peanuts

Walnuts were previously listed as an item for which labeling was recommended as “Specified raw material equivalents” but this will now be shifted to an item for which labeling is mandatory.

About the addition of rapeseed producing EPA and DHA

Matters concerning genetically modified foods are covered in “Appended Table 17 (Target Agricultural Products and Processed Foods) and Appended Table 18 (Target forms and characteristics and Processed Foods)”, of which Appended Table 18, which specifies forms and characteristics, will be revised. (Revised parts are underlined in underlined in red letters)

Appended Table 18 (before the revision)

Form and characteristicsProcessed foodsTarget agricultural products
Stearidonic acid production １ Food made mainly from soybeans (except ones which do not have form and characteristics listed in the upper table (left) after being defatted)
２ Food made mainly from an ingredient listed in 1 		Soybean
High lysine １ Food made mainly from corns (except ones which do not have form and characteristics listed in the upper table(left))
２ Food made mainly from an ingredient listed in 1 		Corn

Appended Table 18 (after the revision)

Form and characteristics Processed foods Target agricultural products
Stearidonic acid production

1 Food made mainly from soybeans (except ones which do not have form and characteristics listed in the upper table (left) after being defatted)

2 Food made mainly from an ingredient listed in 1		 Soybean
High lysine

1 Food made mainly from corns (except ones which do not have form and characteristics listed in the upper table(left))

2 Food made mainly from an ingredient listed in 1		 Corn
Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) production 1 Food made mainly from rapeseed (except ones which do not have form and characteristics listed in the left table
2 Food made mainly from an ingredient listed in 1 		Rapeseed
Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) production

Although rapeseed is listed as a target agricultural product in Appended Table 17, no requirements are set for its processed foods. As a result of this revision, it will be necessary to confirm the characteristics (EPA/DHA production) of items that fall under the category of “items whose main ingredient is rapeseed (and items whose main ingredient is food whose main ingredient is rapeseed).”

Upcoming schedules

In the revision draft based on invited public comments, the transitional measures period and the effective date regarding Appended Table 14 (allergen labeling) have not yet been determined.

(Effective Date)
Article 1 This Cabinet Office Ordinance comes into effect as of the date of promulgation. However, the revised provisions of Appended Table 14 shall come into effect as from XX(date) XXX(month), XXXX(year).
(Transitional Measures)
Article 2 With regard to the labeling of processed foods (excluding processed foods for business use) which are manufactured, processed, or imported and processed foods for business use to be sold by from the date of enforcement of the revised provisions prescribed in the proviso of the preceding article to XX(date) XXX(month), XXXX(year) and processed foods for business use which are sold by the same date, the provisions then in force shall remain applicable notwithstanding the provisions of Appended Table 14 of the Food Labeling Standards revised by said revised provisions.

A report on the revision draft was published on December 13, 2022. The transitional period is until March 31, 2025.

(Effective Date)
Article 1 This Cabinet Office Ordinance comes into effect as of the date of promulgation.
(Transitional Measures)
Article 2 With regard to the labeling of processed foods (excluding processed foods for business use) manufactured, processed, or imported from the date of enforcement of this Ordinance to March 31, 2025, and processed foods for business use to be sold by the same date, the provisions then in force shall remain applicable notwithstanding the provisions of Appended Table 14 of Food Labeling Standards revised by this Ordinance.

If the allergen labeling currently covers only seven items, it will be necessary to re-check from the stage of product specification in order to add a new indication. Especially in the case of handling imported foods and ingredients it must be carefully checked whether or not walnuts are contained (because many countries collectively handle them as “nuts”).

As for walnuts, the revision is implemented in response to a background such as an increase in the number of cases of allergy. Even during the transitional measures period, it is important to reconfirm information management, such as ingredient specifications, to be able to respond to inquiries from consumers.

Reference

Regarding Comments invitation on partial revision draft of Food Labeling Standards

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.

Japanese Agricultural Standards (JAS) for “Processed Food Suitable for Vegetarians or Vegans” established (JAPAN)

On September 6, 2022, the Japanese Agricultural Standards (JAS) for processed foods suitable for vegetarians or vegans was established. It was added to the JAS list on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries on the same day, and we would like to summarize the outline and key points for labeling below.

Background of summary

Around May 2021, a study for JAS standardization (study body: Japan Vegetarian Society, an authorized nonprofit organization) began, followed by an invitation for opinions on the draft for JAS in June 2022, and led to the current enactment. “Technical standards for the certification” and “inspection methods” are shown in line with the establishment of the “standard” for processed foods suitable for vegetarians or vegans. The standard defines the requirements for four foods: “processed food suitable for vegetarians who eat eggs and dairy products (Lacto-Ovo Vegetarians)”, “processed food suitable for vegetarians who eat eggs (Ovo-Vegetarians)”, “processed food suitable for vegetarians who eat dairy products (Lacto-Vegetarians)” and “processed food suitable for vegan”.

Standard for each food type (Clause 4)

According to this standard, the definition of each food type can be summarized as follows.

  Processed food suitable for vegetarians who consume eggs and dairy products (Lacto-Ovo Vegetarians) Processed food suitable for vegetarians who consume eggs (Ovo-Vegetarians) Processed food suitable for vegetarians who consume dairy products (Lacto-Vegetarians) Processed food suitable for vegan
4a)   – Animal-derived primary and secondary ingredients (Processing aids for secondary ingredients shall be limited to bone charcoal obtained from animals and crustaceans) shall not be used.
– However, regardless of primary and secondary ingredients, in the case where ingredients/additives at any stage are easy to determine from the name of the ingredients or additives that they are animal derived, such ingredients/additives shall not be used.
Ingredients of animal-derived that can be used* Animal eggs or their processed foods

〇

〇

×

×
Animal milk or their processed foods

〇

×

〇

×
Honey or bee products (beeswax, propolis, etc.)

〇

〇

〇

×
Wool fat containing lanolin

〇

〇

〇

×

4b)

 No animal tests of the above foods must be conducted by manufacturers, etc.

* “〇” includes its ingredients or their derivatives.

About Ingredient receipt, storage and manufacturing (Clause 5)

The standards for production process management can be summarized as follows.

 

 Processed food suitable for vegetarians who consume eggs and dairy products (Lacto-Ovo Vegetarians) Processed food suitable for vegetarians who consume eggs (Ovo-Vegetarians) Processed food suitable for vegetarians who consume dairy products (Lacto-Vegetarians) Processed food suitable for vegan
Receipt and storage of primary ingredients At the time of receipt of procured primary ingredients, the grounds for satisfying 4a) of each food shall be obtained, and the primary ingredients shall be managed separately so as not to be mixed with ingredients/additives which do not satisfy 4a).
Manufacturing – Appropriate precautions must be taken to prevent the unintentional contamination of unsuitable ingredients/additives in each food product.
– No oil for frying ingredients unsuitable for each food or processed food made from such ingredients shall be used.
– In the case where the production line for processed foods using ingredients/additives suitable for each food is shared with the production for processed foods using ingredients/additives unsuitable for each food, cleaning must be fully carried out before the start of the production of processed foods using ingredients/additives suitable for each food. This shall also apply to any surface with which the relevant machinery, equipment, tools and ingredients come into contact.

About labeling (Clause 6)

According to the definitions in the Standard, the labeling standard can be summarized as follows.

Terms*

“Vegetarians who consume eggs and dairy products (Lacto-Ovo Vegetarians)”

“Vegetarians who consume eggs (Ovo-Vegetarians)”

“Vegetarians who consume dairy products (Lacto-Vegetarians)”

 “Vegan”
“Vegetarian”
Labeling items – The labeling of the above terms must meet the applicable requirements of Clause 4 (Standard for processed foods suitable for vegetarian or vegan consumption) and Clause 5 (Standard for production process control of processed foods suitable for vegetarian or vegan consumption).
– Even in the case of possible unintentional contamination of unsuitable ingredients/additives in each food product, the above terms may be indicated if appropriate precautions have been taken. – The above terms may be used even when an allergen alert based on the possibility of unintentional contamination of ingredients/additives unsuitable for each food product is labeled.
Labeling methods In order to distinguish processed foods similar to those of animal-derived, the above terms must be indicated in the same field of view as the product name of the processed foods.
Manner of Indication, etc. – (N/A)
Prohibited labeling items – (N/A)

* Terms with similar meanings to these are included as well.

Keeping an eye on future international trends

In March 2021, International Organization for Standardization for foods suitable for vegetarians or vegans, ISO 23662：Definitions and technical criteria for foods and food ingredients suitable for vegetarians or vegans and for labelling and claims) was published and it serves as a reference for the establishment of the JAS Standard this time. 　On the other hand, regarding terms such as “plant-based” and “plant-based food”. the result of the public comment states that “there is no definition in Japan* or internationally, and we will monitor and respond to future international trends”. When considering the labeling of terms related to foods suitable for vegetarians or vegans as well as related terms such as plant-based, it would be a good idea to start by checking the JAS standard for this issue.

*For reference information at this time, the “Q&A on Labeling of Plant-Based Foods, etc. (Consumer Affairs Agency)” states, “‘Plant-based food’ as used in this Q&A refers to products made from mainly plant-derived ingredients (not including livestock or marine products) that resemble livestock products such as meat and fish or marine products such as fish. Even if animal-derived additives are contained, if the main ingredient is plant-derived, it shall be included in ‘plant-based food'”.

References

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.

Inviting comments started about the partial revision(draft) “Matters to be Noted relating to Health Foods under the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations and the Health Promotion Act” (Japan)

On August 9, 2022, the Consumer Affairs Agency(CAA) prepared and announced a partial revision (draft) of “Matters to be Noted relating to Health Foods under the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations and the Health Promotion Act”. From the same day until September 7, comments were invited through public comments. The purpose of the partial revision is to “contribute to the proper advertising activities by business operators with clearer indication of the concept against labeling that may cause a problem under the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations and the Health Promotion Act after many years since the full revision of these precautions”. I would like to summarize the outline of the proposal as follows.

Major Revisions (The old and new comparative table)

1) Revised or supplemented by revision (partial excerpt) (revised parts are underlined in red letters)

◆ Addition of the statement that general food items (that are clearly recognized as such) are targeted as well to this precaution”

Article 65, Paragraph 1 of Health Promotion Act prohibits false and exaggerated labeling of health maintenance and promotion effects, etc. with regard to products 1 offered for sale as food, including not only food in the form of tablets or capsules, but also vegetables, fruits, cooked products, etc. that are clearly recognized as general food from their appearance, shape, etc.

◆ Supplemental notes on the applicability of “labeling”

When the advertisements, such as a booklet containing information on health-promoting effects of a specific food or ingredient as well as a booklet containing information on a specific product with such effects and free samples of the product, are all deemed to induce general customers who make inquiries to the contact point listed in the advertisement regarding the health maintenance/promotion effects of the specific food or ingredient, etc, to purchase the specific product.
When circumstances are found that may remind general consumers who are exposed to advertisements regarding the health maintenance/promotion effects of a specific food or ingredient, etc. of a specific product because the name of the specific food or ingredient is used as the product name or brand name.

◆ Supplemental notes on the labeling subjectivity of affiliate advertisements

With regard to such labeling on affiliate sites, if the advertiser is evaluated as having been involved in determining the content of the labeling, even though the advertiser is not specifically aware of the content of the labeling, the advertiser is an entity subject to measures under the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations and Health Promotion Act, such as in cases where the advertiser entrusts the affiliate to determine the contents of the labeling despite being able to determine themselves. (snip) it is necessary.

2) Newly added due to revision (partial excerpt)

◆ Addition of examples related to health maintenance and improvement effects

(1) “Effect of maintaining and improving health”

  1. (a) Effect aimed at treatment or prevention of disease: Addition of “prevention of coronavirus” and “prevention of dementia”
  2. (b) Effects with the main purpose of general enhancement or enhancement of body tissue functions: Addition of “anti-aging”, “activation of cells”, etc.
  3. (c) Effect of being suitable for a specific health use: addition of “help to lose body fat”, etc.
  4. (d) Nutritional effects: Addition of “vitamin D is a nutrient that facilitates the absorption of calcium in the intestine and helps bone formation”

(3) Those that implicitly or indirectly express “health maintenance/promotion effects, etc.”

  1. (a) Labeling made as part of a product name or marketing claims
    Addition of “Fertility,” “Intestinal activity,” “Slim XX,” “Reduced fat XX,” “Detox XX,” and “Clean up the excess accumulated in your body”
  2. (d) Labeling problematic issues such as anxiety and worries related to the body’s organizational functions, etc., with examples
    Addition of “The lack of XX may be the cause why I feel weak these days”, etc.

◆ Addition of examples where the labeled effects do not adequately correspond to the verified effects
e.g. A report of a human study using a product with a claim for slimming effect was submitted, but there was a significant discrepancy between the demonstrated content and the indicated effect on visceral fat and body weight loss.
e.g. Addition of items in which a report of a human study using a product that claims that a slimming effect can be obtained only by taking the product without any particular exercise or dietary restriction was submitted, but in fact subjects in the human study were provided with intervention guidance on exercise and dietary restriction, etc.

◆ Addition of the concept of advertising part of the post-check Guidelines for Foods with Function Claims

(2) Foods with Function Claims

(a) Labeling exceeding the contents of the submitted documents
e.g. Although the content of the labeling is “Has the functionality to help obese people reduce visceral fat”, the labeling as a whole makes it appear as if anyone can easily obtain the effect of slimming the abdomen without any special exercise or dietary restrictions.

(d) When the scientific evidence supporting the labeling lacks rationality
As for Foods with Function Claims, please refer to a detailed explanation of the concepts that may lead to false and exaggerated representations, etc. as advertisements and other labeling that may be problematic under the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations in the “Guidelines (draft) on ensuring the transparency of ex-post regulations (post-checks) based on relevant laws on food labeling for Foods with Function Claims”.

◆ Addition of examples of “health maintenance/promotion effects, etc.”

2 Examples of problematic labeling in health foods (so-called health foods) other than Foods with Health Claims

(1) Examples of problematic issues such as anxieties, worries, etc. related to the body’s organizational functions, etc. that have not yet been resolved
Labeling problematic issues such as anxiety and worries related to the body’s organizational functions, etc., such as symptoms of diseases that cannot be resolved by the health maintenance/promotion effects, etc. of health foods, etc. with examples(snip) Labeling changes in body tissue functions, etc., which totally cannot be obtained with the functionality of the food or the functional component from health maintenance/promotion effects, etc. that health foods have, by using illustrations or photographs (snip)

(4) In the case of use of superlative or similar expressions
(snip)When the No. 1 indication of the quality of the contents of the goods, etc. or the superiority of the terms of trade is not based on reasonable grounds or is otherwise different from the facts in the cases where labeling such as “No. 1 in sales in the diet category” or “No. 1 in customer satisfaction ranking” (so-called “No. 1 labeling”) is seen (snip)

(5) Inappropriate use of the experience report (addition of underlined parts in red letters)
In addition, when even the statements in the labeling such as “These are my personal opinions,” “The effects are not guaranteed,” or “These are the results of light exercise in combination with the product,” does not affect the determination of whether or not the product constitutes false and exaggerated labeling, etc. and the general consumers are led to believe that the product has health maintenance/promotion effects, etc. from the labeling that claims the effects of the ingredients contained in the product or the entire content of the labeling, including testimonials, etc., but the product does not actually have such effects (snip)

◆ Supplemental notes on Fine print* (*also known as “disclaimer”)

In cases where the effects of health food are mentioned in the testimonials, in order to avoid misleading consumers, it is recommended to clearly indicate.

  1. the number and attributes of persons with the experience
  2. the percentage of those who experienced the same effects as persons with the experience
  3. the percentage of those who did not experience the same effects as persons with the experience based on a survey conducted by the business operator when labeling such testimonials

Future schedules

After a public comment period until September 7, 2022, the results will be publicly announced on December 1, 2022, after the announcement of the result. This will be an important revision for those who handle foods with health and functional claims. I think it would be good to confirm at first the partial revision of the invitation for comments.

References

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.

Educational leaflets and posters “the guideline of additive labeling for use of ‘non-use'” released (Japan)

In June, the Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA) has released educational leaflets and posters on “the guideline of additive labeling for use of ‘non-use'”on its website. In addition, “illustrations of 10 type items” are also posted on the website and I would like to focus on these in this column.

The leaflets and posters were published on June 22, 2022. Although this guideline was prepared for consumers, there are examples of specific labeling, which will be also helpful for food manufacturers to understand the guidelines. However, there are two versions of these leaflets and posters, “single-sided” and “double-sided” versions, and there are slight differences in the content of those illustrations. First of all, I would like to sort out what I understand from the three examples described.

Educational leaflet and poster (single-sided)
Educational leaflet and poster (double-sided)

1. e.g. Strawberry juice

– If what is not added is not clear, such case may violate the guideline.
– As e.g. 1, when colouring or an ingredient/ additive having a function similar to that of colouring is not used, it can be labeled as “No colouring added”, etc. (However, cranberry extract, etc. fall under the category of ingredients having a function similar to that of colouring.)
– As e.g. 2, it can be labeled such as “The red colour of juice is the colour of strawberry itself.”

2. e.g. Donut

– Labeling that artificial sweetener is not used may violate the guideline.
– As e.g. 1, when sweetener or an ingredient/ additive having a function similar to that of sweetener is not used, it can be labeled as “No sweetener used”, etc. (However, licorice extract, etc. fall under the category of ingredients having a function similar to that of sweetener.)
– As e.g. 2, it can be labeled that “Sweetness extracted from the plant called Rakanka (monk fruit) is used”.

3. e.g. Rice ball

– Labeling of “No preservative added” on foods with antioxidant may violate the guideline.
– As e.g. 1, when preservative or an ingredient/ additive having a function similar to that of preservative is not used, it can be labeled as “No preservative added”, etc. (However, antioxidants or pH regulators. etc. fall under the category of “additives having a function similar to that of preservative.”)
– As e.g.2 it can be labeled that “Antioxidant is used to provide a preservative function”.

In addition, these leaflets and posters do not mention the possibility that both e.g.1 (non-use labeling) and e.g.2 (an ingredient/additive having same function / similar function) may be indicated.

Around November, 2022, there were some revisions of educational leaflets and posters, as follows.

The following parts have been deleted.

  • (e.g. 2 of Strawberry juice) “The red colour of juice is the colour of strawberry itself.”
  • (e.g. 2 of Doughnut) “Sweetness extracted from the plant called Rakanka (monk fruit) is used”
  • (Rice ball) “*antioxidant, pH regulator. etc.”

Next, specific examples are included in “illustrations of 10 type items”, so I would like to excerpt them here.

In the case of rice ball labeling, “no preservative added” for foods containing “glycine expected to improve shelf life” falls under Type 4 (Labeling on foods with additives having same function / similar function). The explanation in the guideline includes only “labeling of ‘no preservative added’ on foods with additives to improve shelf life other than preservatives”, which means that glycine, as a specific example, should be noted (falls under an additive with similar functions to preservative).

In addition, in the case of Shirodashi(pale colored broth), it can be seen that labeling “no seasoning (amino acid, etc.) added” for foods that “contain yeast extract whose main ingredient is amino acid” falls under Type 5 (Labeling on foods with ingredients having same function / similar function). The explanation in the guideline includes only “labeling of ‘no seasoning as an additive used’ on foods that use extracts containing amino acids as ingredients “, which means that yeast extract, as a specific example, should be noted (falls under an additive with similar functions to seasoning (amino acids, etc.)).

As shown in these leaflets and posters and the “illustrations of 10 type items”, the key point to keep in mind when trying to label non-use of additives is to “clarify what is not added and what is used”. For future review of labeling of your products, we think it would be good to check it from the following URL.

References

The move from recommended to mandatory allergen labeling for “walnuts” (Part 2) (Japan) ~Report on the national fact-finding survey of health damage caused by immediate-type food allergy in 2021~

At the 67th Consumer Commission Food Labeling Section Meeting held on June 6, 2022, the prospect of the mandatory allergen labeling of “walnuts” was announced. I would also like to take up the “Report on the national fact-finding survey of health damage caused by immediate-type food allergy in 2021”, which was the background of the announcement.

Main Points

  • According to the survey (2020), nuts have become one of the three major foods causing allergies, surpassing wheat
  • Among nuts, allergens caused by walnuts have increased significantly, followed by cashew nuts
  • The revision bill to make walnuts subject to mandatory labeling is expected to be consulted by the end of this fiscal year

Background to date

It was at the 56th Consumer Commission Food Labeling Section Meeting held on July 5, 2019, that the Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA) announced its policy of “designating walnuts as products subject to mandatory labeling.” The background is that the number of cases caused by almonds and walnuts increased compared with the previous two surveys in the report compiling the results of the survey at that time (“Report on the national fact-finding survey of health damage caused by immediate-type food allergy in 2018”).

Subsequently, almonds were added to the list of items for recommended allergen labeling in September 2019. As for walnuts, the issues to be considered were organized as follows, -need to confirm whether or not the number of cases is not just temporary
-when designating an item as subject to mandatory labeling, test methods need to be developed and validated from the perspective of ensuring the implementation.

In addition, the “Advisors’ Meeting on Food Allergen” which started in February 2021, proceeded with preparations and discussions, including surveys.

Based on the results of the survey, a concrete target (aiming for consultation by the end of this fiscal year) was set regarding the timing of the transition of walnuts to a mandatory labeling item.

About this survey

The following is an excerpt from the 67th Food Labeling Section Meeting material, “Regarding labeling of foods containing allergens”, which provides an overview of the survey.

Method of the surveys

  • The subjects of the survey were “Patients who had any reaction within 60 minutes of food ingestion and visited a medical institution” except the cases in which symptoms were induced by food oral load testing or oral immunotherapy (OIT).
  • The survey period was from January to December 2020, and postcards were mailed every three months. Reports were received by postcard or by email when requested.

Subject of the survey

6,080 cases were analyzed after excluding 414 cases with unidentified causative substances, 83 cases with causative substances other than food (70 cases of Anisakis, 13 cases of mite), and 100 cases with unclear age, gender, treatment/outcome, first-time cases of allergy/ erroneous food intake, and OIT out of a total of 6,677 cases.

Causative food

Chicken eggs 2,028 cases (33.4%), cow milk 1,131 cases (18.6%), and nuts 819 cases (13.5%). Until the previous survey, the top three causative foods were chicken eggs, cow milk, and wheat, but in this survey, the proportion of nuts increased to third place (from 8.2% in the previous survey to fourth place). Among the nuts, walnuts were the largest number (463 cases), followed by cashew nuts (174 cases) and macadamia nuts (45 cases).

Chart 2: Proportion of causative foods
Type n % of total
Walnuts 463 7.6%
Cashew nuts 174 2.9%
Macadamia nuts 45 0.7%
Almonds 34 0.6%
Pistachios 22 0.4%
Pecan nuts 19 0.3%
Hazelnuts 17 0.3%
Coconuts 8 0.1%
Cacao 1 0.0%
Chestnuts 1 0.0%
Pine nuts 1 0.0%
Mixed nuts/category unknown 34 0.6%
Total 819

Table1: Breakdown of tree nuts

Shock symptoms

Until the previous survey, the top three causative foods causing shock symptoms were chicken eggs, cow milk, and wheat, but in this survey, the proportion of nuts increased to third place (from 12.8% in the previous survey, the fourth place). As the breakdown of the nuts, walnuts were the most common at 58 examples, ranking higher than peanuts (46 cases) alone. Cashew nuts followed with 30 cases.

Chart 3: Causative foods causing shock symptoms
Typen% of total
Walnuts 58 8.8%
Cashew nuts 30 4.5%
Almonds 7 1.1%
Pistachios 6 0.9%
Macadamia nuts 5 0.8%
Pecan nuts 3 0.5%
Mixed nuts/category unknown 6 0.9%
Total 115

Table3: Breakdown of tree nuts causing shock symptoms

Discussion and Conclusion

Similarly, “Regarding labeling of foods containing allergens” from the 67th Food Labeling Section Meeting material provides the summary of the discussion and conclusions as follows.

Chart 4: Change in the proportion of cases of top causative foods

Looking at the increasing trend of nuts since 2005, while chicken eggs, cow milk, and wheat, which are high-ranking items, have remained almost unchanged, nuts have increased since 2014.

Chart 5: Change in the proportion of cases of tree nuts
(Only tree nuts with more than 0.5% extracted in the 2020 survey)

Looking at the breakdown of nuts, the increase of cases by walnuts is remarkable.

  1. The number of survey cases this time was 6,080, keeping an increasing trend from the previous survey (4,851 cases).
  2. Until the previous survey(2017), the top three causative foods were chicken eggs, cow milk, and wheat, but in this survey, the proportion of nuts increased to third place surpassing wheat.
  3. Among nuts, allergens caused by walnuts have increased significantly, followed by cashew nuts.
  4. In terms of causative foods for first-time cases of allergy reaction onset, chicken eggs, cow milk, and wheat were the most common in the 0-year-old group, while tree nuts were among the top three in the infant and school-age groups.
  5. The increase in tree nuts as causative foods for immediate-type food allergy is not a temporary phenomenon.

Based on the above, as the conclusion of “-need to confirm whether or not the number of cases is just not temporary” for walnuts, walnuts will be added to the list of specified ingredients for mandatory labeling because they are considered to be “significantly increasing and not a temporary phenomenon”.

Future schedules

CAA plans to consult with the Consumer Commission on the revision of Food Labeling Standards, by the end of this fiscal year at the latest. In addition, with regard to “Development and validation of test methods”, which had been previously considered as an issue to be considered, development is currently underway with aiming of its completion in the next fiscal year. Therefore, it can be assumed that Food Labeling Standards will be revised by the end of March 2023, and walnuts will be changed to items subject to mandatory allergen labeling.

In the meantime, I would like to recommend those who are involved in food labeling read this report of investigation results. In addition to walnuts, the increase in cashews can also be reconfirmed, as well as the proportion of first-time cases of allergy and erroneous food intake, and the proportion of cases of food labeling errors among erroneous food intake. We hope that it will be utilized for future confirmation work.

References

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.

Fact finding survey results on labeling for the country of origin of ingredients released (Japan)~and regarding improvement of the legibility of allergen labeling~

On March 28, 2022, the Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA) published the “The FY 2021 Results of a fact-finding survey on new labeling system for country of origin of ingredients for processed foods”. New labeling system for countries of origin of ingredients started with the revision of Food Labeling Standards in September 2017, and the new system was introduced in April 2022 after the completion of the transitional period. We would like to organize the published survey results here so that we can take the opportunity to look back on the system revision and subsequent labeling.

Summary of the survey

The fact-finding survey was launched in 2019, and this is the third time it has been conducted so far. The summary of the past three surveys is as follows. There are three survey items related to labeling for countries of origin of ingredients in common, while the other items seem to be surveyed as required by year.

  FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Date July 29, 2019 July 27, 2020 July 27, 2021
Location Supermarket in Yokohama City, Kanagawa Prefecture
Subjects (breakdown)

1,514 items on the second shelf from the top of each store shelf

(Breakdown: 1,349 domestically made (in Japan) products and 165 imported products)

1,349 items on the second shelf from the top of each store shelf

(Breakdown: 1,231domestically made (in Japan) products and 118 imported products)

1,744 items on the second shelf from the top of each store shelf

(Breakdown: 1,458 domestically made (in Japan) products and 286 imported products)
Survey items (1) Whether the country of origin of ingredients is indicated or not
(2) Grounds acts/ordinances, etc. on labeling countries of origin of ingredients
(3) Labeling methods based on new labeling system for country of origin of ingredients
(4) Implementation status of labeling based on Food Labeling Standards (4) Status of initiatives of the legibility improvement of allergen labeling
  (5) Status of non-use labeling, etc. for food additives  
Method of the surveys Confirm labeling place of mandatory labeling items (collective labeling frame) and claims labeling, etc. on containers and packaging by taking pictures with a digital camera.

Whether the country of origin of ingredients is indicated or not

The summary of the past three surveys is as follows. The results of the survey on “no labeling of the country of origin of ingredients” in FY2021 may be due to the fact that there were approximately six months remaining until the end of the transitional period when the survey was conducted (in many cases, mainly foods with a short shelf life were switched to the new labeling system after September 2021).

  FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
The country of origin of ingredients is indicated 494 627 1,122
The country of origin of ingredients is not indicated 855 602 332
Total 1,349 1,229* 1,454*

* Excluding processed foods consisting solely of additives (2 items in 2020 and 4 items in 2021).

Grounds acts/ordinances for products with labeling for the countries of origin of ingredients

See the following result: “②New labeling for countries of origin of ingredients” has increased the most for the three years of the survey period, which indicates that many foods were subject to new labeling system for the first time.

Labeling method for products with new labeling for countries of origin of ingredients

See the following result: Labeling in descending order of weight by country is indicated the most.

When the subject ingredients are fresh foods

  FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
① Conventional labeling for countries of origin of ingredients
(Appended Table 15 Food Labeling Standards)		 91 88 87
② New labeling for countries of origin of ingredients
(Article 3 Food Labeling Standards (excluding Appended Table 15))		 274 457 892
③ The Rice Traceability Act 99 55 98
④ Law Concerning Liquor Business Associations and Measures for securing Revenue from Liquor Tax 14 11 26
⑤ Fair Competition Code 15 14 18
⑥ Industry guidelines, etc. 1 2 1
Total 494 627 1,122

When the subject ingredients are processed foods

  FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Labeling for place of origin (labeling in descending order of weight by country) 131 161 244
Labeling for the place of origin (“And/Or” labeling)* 2 6 21
Labeling for the place of origin (“All inclusive” labeling) * 2 8 9
Labeling for the place of origin (“All inclusive” labeling & “And/Or” labeling ) 0 0 8
Total 135 175 282

* “And/Or” labeling: A labeling method listing potential supplying countries as countries of origin of ingredients in descending order by weight based on the past records or the future plans on ingredients use for a defined period of time in the past or in the future, whose country names will be connected with “or.”
* “All inclusive” labeling: A labelling method for bundling foreign supplying countries together in a category classed as “import”.

Regarding improvement of the legibility of allergen labels

Finally, here are some excerpts from the results of the survey on improvement of the legibility of allergen labels, which was conducted only in FY 2021.

The labeling method among products that have an indication of allergens within the collective labeling frame

  Number of products
Individual labeling* 445
Collective labelling* 588
Total 1,033

* “Individual labeling”: A labeling method stating that specified allergens (mandatory labeling items for allergens in Japan) are included in parentheses immediately after the names of each ingredient/additive are labeled.
*“Collective labeling”: A labeling method in which “(一部に○○・○○・…を含む) (EN: partially contains XX・XX・… ) ” is labeled at the end of the ingredient column (when the ingredients and additives are listed separately by providing respective columns, the end of the ingredient column and the end of the additive column, respectively).

Presence/absence of claims for allergen outside collective labeling frame

  Number of products
Presence of labeling 598
Absence of labeling 435
Total 1,033

Presence/absence of the labeling scope (number of subject items) among allergen claims outside the collective frame

  Number of products
Labeling indicating “only specified allergens”* 7
Labeling indicating “specified allergens, etc. “* 534
Absence of labeling 57
Total 598

 Examples of “labeling scope of allergens (number of items subject to allergen labeling)”
-Labeling indicating “only specified allergens” (mandatory labeling items for allergens in Japan): “Seven mandatory labeling allergens are in the scope”, “Allergens (only mandatory labeling items for allergens)”, etc.
-Labeling indicating “specified allergens, etc. “(mandatory & voluntary labeling items for allergens in Japan): “28 allergens are in the labeling scope”, “Allergens (28 items)”, etc.

    Presence/absence of “labeling indicating no specified allergens are used” on products that do not have an indication of allergens within the collective labeling frame

      Number of products
    Presence of labeling 47
    Absence of labeling 410
    Total 457

    Other survey results can be found such as “labeling methods for characters for products with allergen claims outside the collective labeling frame (“colour of characters”, “size of characters”, “thickness of characters” and “presence/absence of underlining” compared with the characters in the collective labeling frame)”

    Regarding labeling methods for countries of origin of ingredients, I think that it is only a grasp of the actual situation. Allergen labeling, however, includes information on the labeling scope of allergens and how to indicate the characters, which may provide you with hints for future improvements.

    References

    “Results of fact-finding survey on new labeling system for country of origin of ingredients for processed foods” (CAA)

    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.