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).

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.

    “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

    “Japanese Agricultural Standards for Textured Soy Protein Products” established (Japan)~Notes on the labeling of plant-based foods~

    On February 24, 2022, Japanese Agricultural Standards (hereinafter referred to as “JAS”) for Textured Soy Protein Products were established. On the same day, it was added to the JAS list on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and we would like to summarize the outline and key points for labeling below.

    Summary of background

    In the fall of 2020, the discussion on JAS (discussed mainly by Otsuka Foods Co., Ltd.) started and after, soliciting opinions on the JAS draft in November 2021, the current establishment was accomplished. “Technical standards for certification” and “inspection methods” are shown in line with the establishment of “Standards” for textured soy protein products. The standard defines the requirements for two food products: “Soy meat product” and “Prepared soy meat product”.

    “Soy meat product” and “Prepared soy meat product”

    According to the definitions in the Standard, the differences between the two products can be summarized as follows.

      Soy meat product Prepared soy meat product
    Processing Processing soy meat ingredients to have meat-like characteristics unique to the product. Processing soy meat ingredients to have meat-like characteristics unique to the product.
    Ingredients No animal ingredients or processed products made from animal ingredients shall be used as ingredients from primary ingredients to tertiary ingredients. No animal ingredients (excluding milk and edible poultry eggs) or processed products made from animal ingredients (excluding seasoning) shall be used as ingredients from primary ingredients to tertiary ingredients.
    Soy protein content rate Soy protein content rate must be at least 10 %. Soy protein content rate must be at least 1%.
    Amino acid score of ingredients Soy meat ingredients with an amino acid score of 100 must be used. – (N/A)

    The reason behind the setting of the standard for amino acid score is that it is important to claim that “all essential amino acids can be taken in good balance” “for the purpose of suggesting to consumers a new way of taking soy protein”.

    About labeling

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

      Soy meat product Prepared soy meat product
    Labeling items “大豆ミート食品 (EN: Soy meat product)” or “大豆肉様食品(EN: meat-like product from soy)” must be written in an easily visible location on the container or packaging.* “調製大豆ミート食品 (EN: Prepared soy meat product)” or “調製大豆肉様食品 (EN: Prepared meat-like product from soy)” must be written in an easily visible location on the container or packaging.*
    An explanation of the fact that the product is not meat (“no meat used”, “meat-free”, etc.) must be provided in an easily visible location on the container or packaging.
    Labeling methods – (N/A)
    Manner of Labelling, etc. – (N/A)
    Prohibited labeling items – (N/A)

    * For processed food for business use, it can be indicated on invoices, delivery slips, etc. or specifications.

    As for the point that textured soy protein products needed to be labeled as “No meat used ” or “meat-free”, the “Q&As (FAQs) on the Labeling of Plant-Based (Plant-Derived) Foods” published by the Consumer Affairs Agency last summer will probably be a good reference for that. The following is a summary of the relevant Q&As.

    Q&As (FAQs) on the Labeling of Plant-Based Foods

    The following is an excerpt from the same Q&A published on August 20, 2021, as notes regarding the labeling of “meat” (alternative meat) from plant-based foods. (The definition of “plant-based food” is “a product made to resemble livestock products, such as meat, or marine products such as fish, using ingredients (not including livestock products or marine products) that are mainly derived from plants. Even if a product contains additives of animal origin, if the main ingredient is from plant, it is included in “plant-based (plant-derived) food.”)

    Example of labeling Note
    Labeling “大豆肉 (EN: soy meat)” or “ノットミート(EN: non-meat)” in product names The labeling as a whole must not mislead the general consumer into believing that the product is meat when it is not. Therefore, apart from the product name, it must be labeled “Made with soy,” “Contains soy ingredients” “Does not contain meat,” “Meat-free”, etc.
    Labeling of hamburger steaks made from soy alternative meat as “大豆からつくったハンバーグ(EN: hamburger steak made from soy)” in the product name If the rate of used alternative meat is not 100%, for example, the rate of used alternative meat must be indicated separately from the product name, so that general consumers are not misled into believing that the rate of used alternative meat is 100% when it is not.
    “Labeling of alternative meat made from soy as “大豆ミート (EN: soy meat)” with the words “100%植物性 (EN: 100% plant-based)” added to the product name The labeling as a whole must not mislead general consumers into believing that all ingredients, including food additives, are plant-based when they are not. Therefore, for example, apart from the product name, it must be labeled “Ingredients are plant-based (excluding food additives).

    The above are notes for all labeling, including containers and packaging. And the following are the notes regarding “labeling of ingredient names” in collective labeling. It is necessary to note that terms including “meat” and “egg” cannot be used in ingredient names for plant-based foods.

    Q. How should ingredient names for collective labeling be listed for plant-based(derived from plant) foods? For example, would it be possible to label it as “Alternative meat” or ” Liquid egg”?

    A. Food Labeling Standards stipulate that “the most common name must be used” for products’ ingredient names. As for names of plant-based (plant-derived) foods as ingredients, “Soybeans”, or “Soy-based processed food”, etc. is acceptable for foods made from soybeans. As for ingredient names for plant-based (plant-derived) foods, we believe that terms including meat and eggs cannot be considered as “common names” at present.

    The above is an overview of JAS for textured soy protein products and notes on the labeling of plant-based foods. As a related food, the standardization for JAS of “foods suitable for vegetarians or vegans” is also under consideration. If you are handling soybeans or other plant-based foods, it would be a good idea to consider this situation.

    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.

    The revised draft of the guideline of “non-use” additive labeling released after inviting comments (Japan)

    On March 1, 2022, the Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA) released the revised “the guideline of additive labeling for use of ‘non-use’”(draft) after inviting comments (public comments) at the discussion about the guidelines of additive labeling for use of “non-use”. Some points have been changed since the draft proposal for the request for comments, so we would like to summarize them here.

    Contents of the received comments

    The draft was opened for comment on December 22, 2021, and closed on January 21, 2022. The total number of comments received was 758. A breakdown of the comments is also available in the document (“comments in Public Comments”). The category with the most comments was “Types (376 comments),” followed by “overall guidelines (208 comments) of the categories of “overall guidelines,” “scope of application of guidelines,” “Types,” “dissemination/enlightenment,” “review period of the labeling,” and “others”. Among “Types”, the one with the most comments was “Type 5: Labeling on foods with ingredients having same function / similar function (68 comments)”, followed by “Type 10: Excessive claims (50 comments),” and then “Type 4: Labeling on foods with food additives having same function / similar function (47 comments) and then “Type 2: Labeling terms not stipulated in Food Labeling Standards (46 comments)”.

    Major changes in the revised draft after inviting comments

    The discussion group has published a document titled “Revised Version of the Guidelines with strikethrough” which clearly shows the revisions made to the draft guidelines at the time of the request for comments. The following is an excerpt of the changes that may have an impact on actual label creation work.
    (Among text in red, underlines were newly added and cross-out text was deleted.)

      Revision after inviting comments
    Background and purpose This guideline can be used by food-related businesses, etc. to conduct self-inspection to determine whether or not they are subject to prohibited labeling items stipulated in Article 9 of the Food Labeling Standards.
    Type 1: Mere “not added”; labeling e.g. Labeling merely “no added” without indicating what is not added.
    Type 2: Labeling terms not stipulated in Food Labeling Standards e.g. Terms such as “artificial”, “synthetic”, “chemical seasoning“, “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 – (Minor corrections only)
    Type 4: Labeling on foods with food additives having same function / similar function

    – When the difference between a food additive with non-use label and the other food additives with the same or similar function contained in the food is not clear from the labeling.

    e.g. 2: Labeling “No synthetic colour”; “No XX colour used”; (XX colour is listed in the D esignated additive colouring list in Japan) on food with Existing additives colouring (listed in natural colouring list in Japan)
    Type 5: Labeling on foods with ingredients having same function / similar function e.g. 1 Labeling “No chemical seasonings seasoning as additives used”; on foods with extracts containing amino acids as an (non-additive) ingredient.
    Type 6: Labeling associated with health and safety – (Minor corrections only)
    Type 7: Labeling associated with something other than health and safety e.g. 2: Without mentioning “after opening the package,” the label states, “No preservatives used, so please consume as soon as possible.
    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”;.
    Type 9: Labeling on food with a processing aid or carry-over (or cannot be confirmed not to be used) – (Minor corrections only)
    Type 10: Excessive claims e.g. 1: Labeling “non-use of XX”; in excessively prominent colour on many places of a package of a product
    Review of labeling based on the guidelines

    – During the next two years (until the end of March 2024), it is required to review the labeling as necessary appropriately.

    – Although it will be unavoidable that processed foods manufactured and sold during this period will be distributed with the labeling before the revision, it is desirable to review the labeling of processed foods as soon as possible, even if it is less than two years.

    In Type 4 and 5, which have most comments as public comments, and Type 10 of “Views on comments”, which has an impact on these types, the following answers were often used. Since it is expected to be difficult to list specific examples such as “XX case falls under Type”, self-inspection will be left to the judgment of each business operator.

    “Since the accuracy of labeling is considered to be important in consumers’ product selection, this guideline provides an interpretation of prohibited labeling items as stipulated in Article 9 of Food Labeling Standards, in order to prevent consumers from selecting products based on misleading or contradictory labeling regarding the non-use of food additives.”

    “Article 9 of Food Labeling Standards does not give any stipulations in detail what kind of labeling provides accurate information to consumers, and what kind of labeling misleads consumers. Since the types of non-use labeling of food additives on food products are diverse, it is difficult to enumerate every example.”

    “This guideline is newly formulated as an indicator to determine whether or not a label on product falls under prohibited labeling items stipulated in Article 9 of Food Labeling Standards.”

    “In addition, whether or not the labeling of non-use of food additives falls under the prohibited labeling items stipulated in Article 9 of Food Labeling Standards shall be judged not only based on the case that each Type is considered to have a high possibility of falling under the prohibition of labeling, but also as a whole on a case-by-case basis based on the nature of the product, knowledge level of general consumers, actual conditions of transactions, labeling methods, and contents subject to labeling.”

    Future schedules

    The official guidelines are expected to be announced by March 2022. After that, labeling is expected to be reviewed by the end of March 2024. It is recommended that those who handle products with the relevant labeling read through the draft guidelines and other materials of the discussion in advance.

    Reference

    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.

    Regarding plan for partial revision of food labeling standards (Japan)~Organizing nutrient analysis methods, adding genetically modified “Mustard greens” to the mandatory labeling list, etc.~Regarding plan for partial revision of food labeling standards (Japan)

    On January 17, 2022, the 66th meeting of the Food Labeling Section Meeting was held at the Consumer Commission of the Cabinet Office to discuss the partial revision of Food Labeling Standards. After inviting opinions on the proposed revision regarding nutrients, genetic modification, etc. (from October 27 to November 26, 2021), the partial revisions are scheduled to be promulgated by the end of March 2022 and go into effect on the same day. I would like to summarize the main revisions based on the Food Labeling Section Meeting’s document “Partial revisions to Food Labeling Standards (Consumer Affairs Agency).

    Main Points

    • Integration and consolidation of fat analysis methods, and addition of new methods for chromium, selenium, and iodine analysis.
    • Addition of “Mustard greens” to agricultural products subject to GMO labeling.
    • Deleting “High oleic acid” from the list of specified genetically modified agricultural products.

    About nutrients

    The revision of the analysis methods in the 2020 edition of the Standard Tables of Food Composition in Japan (8th revision), published by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology in December 2020, can be said to lead to this revision. The following is an excerpt from the document “Regarding Partial Revision of Food Labeling Standards”.

    The official methods for nutrients, etc. are specified in Appended Table 9 of the Standards and in the attached methods of analysis of nutrients, etc. in “Regarding Food Labeling Standards”, (hereinafter referred to as “Notification of Analysis, etc.”). Some issues have been pointed out regarding the operation of the Notification of Analysis, etc., such as the fact that there are cases where methods other than those described in the Notification of Analysis, etc. are more suitable for quantification.
    In addition to this, the 2020 edition of the Standard Tables of Food Composition in Japan (8th revision) published by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) has added new analysis methods for nutrients, etc. Based on this, and taking into consideration the feasibility by business operators and the possibility of verification by prefectures, the Consumer Affairs Agency conducted a “Research and Study Project on Analysis Methods for Nutrients in Food Labeling Standards” to discuss the necessity of revising the related acts and regulations, etc.

    And based on the results of the above discussion of the research and study project, the current revision proposal was presented.

    Based on the discussions in the “Research and Study Project on Analysis Methods for Nutrients in Food Labeling Standards”, Appended Table 9 of the Standards, which stipulates analysis methods for nutrients, labeling of Foods with Nutrient Function Claims and nutrient content claims, will be revised, and new analysis methods will be added.
    Measurement and calculation methods other than the Gelber method specified in the current Appended Table 9 of the Standards, and the acid/ammonia decomposition method, which was judged appropriate to be added in the “Research and Study Project on Analysis Methods for Nutrients in Food Labeling Standards”, shall be reorganized as “solvent extraction-gravimetric method”. The specific analysis methods, etc. will continue to be specified in　Notification of Analysis, etc.

    The revised part is Appended Table 9 of the Food Labeling Standards. The following is a summary of the current and proposed revisions, excerpting only “Nutrients and Calories” and “Measurement and calculation methods” in Appended Table 9.

    Nutrients and calories Measurement and calculation methods
    Fat Current Ether extraction method, Chloroform-Methanol mixture extraction method, Gerber method, Acid decomposition method, or Roese-Gottlieb method
    The revision bill Gerber method or Solvent extraction-gravimetric method
    Chromium Current Atomic absorption spectrophotometry or Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroscopy
    The revision bill Atomic absorption spectrophotometry, Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroscopy or Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry
    Selenium Current Fluorography or Atomic absorption spectrophotometry
    The revision bill Fluorography, Atomic absorption spectrophotometryor Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry
    Iodine Current Titration method or Gas chromatograph method
    The revision bill Titration method, Gas Chromatographor Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry

    In addition, “Standard Value per 100kcal for high claims” for “Vitamin K” in the appended Table 12 is changed from 30㎍ to 15㎍.
    Although the method of calculating calorific value was changed in the 2020 edition of the Standard Tables of Food Composition in Japan (8th revision) (Calculated value is obtained from multiplication of protein (as amino acid composition), fat (as triacylglycerol equivalents of fatty acids), available carbohydrates (monosaccharide equivalents), sugar alcohols, dietary fiber, organic acids, and alcohols by the energy conversion factor of each component), as a result of the research and study project, it was decided to continue calculating calorific value using the “modified Atwater method.

    About Genetic Modification

    There are two major revisions planned: the addition of “Mustard greens” and the deletion of “High oleic acid”.
    Here are the excerpts on the background and outline of the revision from “Regarding Partial Revision of Food Labeling Standards” for each of the above.

    Following a safety review of genetically modified mustard greens (hereinafter referred to as “GM mustard greens”) by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, GM mustard greens-derived foods are expected to be distributed in Japan.
    For this purpose, “Mustard greens” shall be added to the target agricultural products listed in Appended Tables 16 and 17 of the Standards.
    Since GM mustard greens, which are undergoing safety review at this time, are a variety for oil and are expected to be distributed only as edible oil, the processed foods pertaining to mustard greens in Appended Table 17 shall not be specified.

    High oleic acid genetically modified soybeans are considered as “Specified genetically modified agricultural products” whose composition, nutritional value, and other characteristics are significantly different from those of normal agricultural products because they were produced using recombinant DNA technology.
    Now that soybeans with the high oleic acid trait can be produced by conventional breeding, high oleic acid genetically modified soybeans no longer fall under the definition of “Specified genetically modified agricultural products”. For this reason, “High oleic acid” will be deleted from the upper column of Appended Table 18 of the Standards, which stipulates the subject of mandatory labeling as “Specified genetically modified agricultural products”.

    The revised parts are Appended Table 16, 17, and 18 of the Food Labeling Standards.

    Appended Table 16 (related Article 2)

    [1-8 omitted]
    9 Mustard greens [Added]

    Appended Table 17 (related Article 3, Article 9)

    Target agricultural products Processed foods
    (Omitted)  
    Mustard greens [Added]  

    Appended Table 18 (related Article 3, Article 18)

      Form and characteristics Processed foods Target agricultural products
    Current High oleic acid １ Food made mainly from soybeans (except ones which do not have form and characteristics listed in the left column* after being defatted)
    ２ Food made mainly from an ingredient listed in 1    		 Soybean
    Stearidonic acid production
    The revision bill [Deleted]
    Stearidonic acid production

    As the revised standards do not prevent the labeling of “High oleic acid” traits, businesses operators wishing to claim high oleic acid traits as an added value may continue to do so on a voluntary basis based on the evidence. In addition, when claiming the use of “High oleic acid soybeans”, the label must be in accordance with “Matters concerning special ingredients, etc.”.
    With regard to “soy sauce” and “edible vegetable oils and fats” in Appended Table 22 of the Food Labeling Standards (Prohibited labeling items), the wording of the cited sections has been changed in accordance with the revision of the Japanese Agricultural Standards (JAS).

    Future schedules

    It is scheduled to be promulgated and enforced on the same day by the end of March 2022. Although the revision does not require immediate correction of labeling, it is advisable to check again if you handle products with the relevant labeling.

    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 invited comments about guideline draft of additive labeling for use of “non-use” (Japan)

    The Consumer Affairs Agency started to invite comments (public comments) on “the guideline draft of additive labeling for use of ‘non-use’”on December 22, 2021. Since there are some changes in “Type items (draft) of non-use labeling of food additives that may cause misunderstandings” (discussion about the guideline of additive labeling for use of non-use) announced on November 18, 2021, I would like to organize them here.

    Background of comment invitation

    Firstly, here are the quotes from “objective of comment invitation” for a reconfirmation of the process that led to the formulation of the guidelines.

    • Article 9 of the Food Labeling Standard prohibits the use of words that contradict terms to be written on labeling or characters that mislead about contents, and the Food Labeling Standards Q&A indicates the interpretation of the article, but it does not show a comprehensive interpretation of the article’s regulations.
    • Food Labeling Standards Q&A indicating the labeling methods of “not added” for additives is ambiguous.
    • In some cases, labeling “not added” is more prominent in a primary display panel of a product than mandatory labeling items, and collective labeling frame, which should be seen, is not utilized. In light of the current situation, it was proposed that a new guideline be formulated to serve as a as a marker for whether a food additive is a prohibited labeling item stipulated in Article 9 of Food Labeling Standards or not.

    Changes from the draft of the previous discussion (Nov. 18, 2021)

    The main changes from the type items(draft) are as follows.

    • Consolidate indications that is considered highly likely to fall under the category of prohibited labeling items stipulated in Article 9 of Food Labeling Standards.
      (Deletion of “Indications that labeling that does not immediately fall under the provisions of Article 9, but may cause misunderstandings by consumers”)
    • Reorganization of the 11 type items into 10 type items by merging the former items (4) and (10).

    The other changes are minor, such as modifying expressions and making examples more specific.

    Indications that is considered highly likely to fall under the category of prohibited labeling items

    In terms of “not added”, “non-use” labeling of food additives, the following 10 type items are indicated as “Indications that is considered highly likely to fall under the category of prohibited labeling items”. (Wording revised from the proposed type items are indicated in red)

    Type item 1Mere “not added” labeling
    e.g. labeling mere “not added”
    (labeling mere “no added” without indicating the object is unclear what is not added.)
    Type item 2Terms not stipulated in Food Labeling Standards
    e.g. Using terms such as “no artificial sweeteners used”,etc. artificial, synthetic, chemical seasonings, natural, etc.
    Type item 3Labeling 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 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 Schedule 3 of the Act
    Type item 4Labeling 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 synthetic colouring used” on foods with coulouring in natural colouring
    Type item 5Labeling on foods with ingredients having same function / similar function
    e.g. 1 Labeling “no chemical seasonings used ” on foods with extracts containing amino acids as ingredients.
    e.g. 2 Labeling ” No emulsifier used” on foods made from highly processed ingredients with emulsifying properties
    (In the case where “non-use” labeling is present and  indications of ingredients with the same function / similar function is 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 item 6Labeling 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 item 7Labeling associating with something other than health and safety
    e.g. 1 Labeling “not added ” or “non-use” for good tastes.
    e.g. 2 Labeling “no preservatives used, please consume as soon as possible”
    No indication of “after opening the package” 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 discoloration of the product
    Type item 8Labeling on foods with use of additives not expected
    e.g. 1 Labeling ” no Colouring used” on food usually sold with its original colour.
    e.g. 2 Labeling “non-use of the additive” on foods of which use of the certain additive is uncommon among similar products and of which use of it is not expected by consumers (as an example of  consumers not expecting use of the additive,
    -use of preservatives in mineral water
    -use of colouring in mineral water
    ,etc.)
    Type item 9Labeling 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 “notadded” or “non-use” with the indication that the verification of labeling is based only on the manufacturing process of the product manufacturer because the whole manufacturing process of each ingredient cannot be confirmed.
    (As for labeling of food additives, confirmation of manufacturing and processing processes is needed.
    There is a risk of misleading of the content if the labeling, which is even indication outside the collective labeling frame, is not based on the results of verification. )
    Type item 10Excessive 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 dded” in a big font beside “preservative, colouring” in a small size on foods with additives other than preservative and colouring used.

    Regarding the review of labeling

    This guideline draft includes the period of time needed for reviewing of labeling.

    • The transitional period would not be needed legally speaking since new specification to Article 9 is not needed to be added.
    • However, due to reasons such as ambiguity in Food Labeling Standards Q&A, which indicates the interpretation of Article 9, there is a possibility that labeling that is considered highly likely to fall under the prohibited items is being used.
    • Labeling must be reviewed for two years (until the end of March 2024).

    The deadline of receiving comments is January 21, 2022. After revisions based on the results of the invitation of comments, the guidelines are expected to be announced as official guidelines by March 2022. Some revisions of related Food Labeling Standards and Fair Competition Code are expected in the future, but it would be easier to judge if reviewing your labels is necessary or not only with this guideline draft. Even though the related “non-use” labeling is not used on your product, looking through the related notifications would be helpful for considering labeling of food additives.

    Reference

    Regarding invitation of comments on “the guideline draft of additive labeling for use of ‘non-use’”(e-gov public comments)

    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.

    Items by Types of Labeling for Non-use Additives (draft) announced (Japan)

    [Latest update: December 13, 2021]
    On December 9, 2021, “the guidelines of additive labeling for use of ‘non-use’” was announced. Please refer to the material “Changes since the last discussion meeting” as well.

    On November 18, 2021, the Consumer Affairs Agency announced “Items by types of labeling for non-use additives (draft) that may cause misunderstandings” at the guidelines study group on non-use labeling of food additives. Below, I would like to summarize the outline of the proposal.

    Background and purpose

    The background for this is based on the summarization that “guidelines must be established to serve as a marker for whether a food additive is a prohibited item or not” in the “The Report on Discussion about the Labeling System for Food Additives (Draft)” published on February 27, 2020. The purpose is “to eliminate labeling such as “not added” that contradicts the content of the items to be labeled which is prohibited by Food Labeling Standards” or misleads the content of the product.

    At this discussion meeting, proposals for items by types ① to ⑪ were presented, and the situation is now being examined to determine which of the following 11 items fall under two categories below as “labeling that may fall under the labeling prohibition stipulated in Article 9 of Food Labeling Standards.

    (1) Labeling that may fall under the provisions of Article 9, Paragraph 1
    (2) Labeling that does not immediately fall under the provisions of Article 9, Paragraph 1, but may cause misunderstandings by consumers.

    Items by types (draft)

    The following are the items by types ① to ⑪ shown as “Items by types of labeling for non-use additives (draft) that may cause misunderstandings”.

    No. Summary Detail
    ① Mere “not added” ‘What is “not added”‘ is unclear
    e.g. Mere “not added” labeling
    ② Terms not stipulated in Food Labeling Standards Terms used with “not added” or “non-use” is not specified in Food Labeling Standards
    e.g. Use terms such as “non-use of artificial sweeteners”, artificial, synthetic, chemical seasonings, natural, etc.
    ③ The use of additives is not permitted by the regulation The use of additives is not permitted by the regulation for the certain foods
    e.g. “No sorbic acid is used” in soft drinks* / Labeling as “not added” or “non-use” of additives on the food with a name specified in Appended Table 5 of Food Labeling Standards, while such additives make the food with the claim fall outside the definition specified in Schedule 3 of the Act
    * Use of sorbic acid in soft drinks violates standards for use
    ④ Giving the impression that no additives are used at all Giving the impression that no additives are used at all, even though additives are used.
    e.g. Labeling of “preservatives, colouring agent” with small font size on the side where “not added” is displayed with large font size (Additives are actually used except for preservatives and colouring agents)
    ⑤ Same function / similar function (additives) Other additives that have the same or similar functions as XX are used, while labeling “XX not added” and “non-use of XX”.
    e.g. While labeling “no preservatives used”, using additives for the purpose of improving shelf-life/ While labeling “no synthetic colouring used”, using colouring in natural colouring
    ⑥ Same function / similar function (ingredients) Other ingredients that have the same or similar functions as XX are used, while labeling “XX not added” and “non-use of XX”.
    e.g. While labeling that no chemical seasonings are used, using extracts containing amino acids as ingredients/ while labeling that no emulsifier is used, using ingredients with emulsifying properties such as egg yolk
    ⑦ Associating with health and safety Associating “not added” or “non-use” with health and safety terms.
    e.g. Indicating “not added” or “non-use” as a reason for good health / Indicating “not added” or “non-use” as a reason for safety
    ⑧ Associating with something other than health and safety Other than health and safety, associating with best before/used by date, functions of additives, good taste, etc.
    e.g. “non-use of preservative, please consume as soon as possible” / Labeling of no colouring as the reason for the possibility of discoloration of the product / Labeling of “not added” or “non-use” as the reason for good taste
    ⑨ Unexpected use of additives Consumers generally do not expect additives to be used in their food
    e.g. Labeling of “no colouring” for foods that show their original colour / Labeling of non-use of an additive for a product that consumers do not expect to use the additive because similar products generally do not use the additives
    ⑩ Claims Using excessively “not added” or “non-use” characters, etc.
    e.g. Indicating that “xx not used” multiple times in different locations /”xx not used” in larger letters or more prominent colours than the collective labeling column)
    ⑪ Processing aid, Carry-over Using as a processing aid or carry-over (or cannot be confirmed not to be used)
    e.g. “No preservatives” is labeled on the final product, but preservatives are used in the ingredients/ It cannot be confirmed that no additives are used in the manufacturing process of the ingredients, so “not added” or “non-use” is labeled with a statement that it is limited to the company’s own manufacturing process.

    Future notes

    In “Confirmation of whether or not it falls under Article 9 of Food Labeling Standards (draft)”, ①②③⑤⑥⑦⑧⑨⑪ falls under category (1) above (may correspond to labeling prohibited items), and ④⑩ fall under category (2) above (risk of causing misunderstanding among consumers). “The details are organized respectively. The following is an excerpt of points to note regarding ② and ⑤⑥, ⑦⑧from “Details of labeling considered highly likely to cause misunderstanding among consumers” in the same document.

    As [② Terms not stipulated in Food Labeling Standards], the term “no chemical seasoning” is expected to not allowed to be used. It is important to note that in principle, all additives must be labeled without differentiating between chemically synthesized and natural according to Food Labeling Standards, and the Deputy Director-General’s Notice does not allow the use of the word “natural” or similar expressions in the labeling of additives.

    Regarding [⑤Same function / similar function (additives)] and [⑥Same function / similar function (ingredients)], it is important to note that a part of CODEX, “it is not allowed to claim if the substance has been substituted by another giving the food equivalent characteristics unless the nature of the substitution is clearly stated with equal prominence” is cited as background for the classification. Also, to what extent concrete examples will be added in the future will be a practical point.

    [⑦Associating “not added” or “non-use” with health and safety terms] item by type is that “additives have been evaluated for safety and are allowed to be used by the government only if they are not likely to harm human health. Therefore, it is difficult for businesses to conduct their own scientific verification of health and safety and relate them to these terms”.

    Finally, regarding the type [⑧ Other than health and safety, associating with best before/used by date, functions of additives, good taste, etc.], it is important to note that “there is a risk of misleading people into believing that the product is better or more advantageous than it actually is” if a causal relationship between the reason for its deliciousness and the fact that it is “non-use of additives” cannot be explained.

    By the end of March 2022, it is expected that the publication of the guidelines, the revision of the related Food Labeling Standards Q&A, and the revision of the related Fair Competition Code will be announced, so it would be better to check the details of the materials mentioned here at first.

    [Postscript December 13, 2021]

    The main changes

    • Consolidated into “Labeling that is considered highly likely to fall under the prohibited labeling items specified in Article 9 of Food Labeling Standards”.
    • Out of the 11 items by types, the former ④ and ⑩ were integrated and reorganized into 10 items by types.

    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.