Traffic light labelling may mean stop for small manufacturers
When a part of the Food Standards Code is changed there is always a period of time allowed for the changes to be made by businesses. The best example is that of labelling changes. Often up to a year is allowed for the change to be on all labelling, to allow time for stocks of current packaging to be used up and new material produced.
If current packaging is left over at the end of the phase in period, it has to be dumped, which can be a significant expense for manufacturers.
There is a call by small food manufacturers for this to be considered during the decision making stage on the introduction of traffic light labelling on packaged foods.
With the economic situation being tight for manufacturing in general, small food manufacturers are very concerned about having to throw out packaging material and purchasing more, if this new labelling is required. This could be the difference between a business making a profit, surviving or going bust.
Lyn Bentley who is the Managing Director of Sticky Fingers Gourmet Foods is just one of the heads of small manufacturers who is voicing their fear about this problem. She says; “As a small manufacturer supplying to both the food service and retail food industries, the costs of having to change all of our labels will be prohibitive for us. If this new traffic light labelling becomes law, we will no longer manufacture for the retail industry at all. Being a small manufacturer, we need to get a good buy on our labels which means we need to bulk buy them. This costs a lot of money and we invest a lot of money making sure we have everything right with the labels. When labelling requirements change, companies like ours are given a certain amount of time to change our labels. Any stock not changed has to come off the shelf and is lost.”
- Published in News
Restaurant of the Year for 2012
The Restaurant of the Year was named recently in the Australian Gourmet Traveller magazine Australian Restaurant Guide Awards. For 2012 it is Sydney’s Marque Restaurant.
It is true that one person’s best of something may not be another’s, but it does give an important guide for many of us to think and talk about.
There were other awards included in this year’s awards including the following;
The Regional Restaurant of the Year – The Royal Mail Hotel in Dunkeld, Victoria.
Best New Talent – Luke Burgess – from Garagistes, Hobart, Tasmania
New Restaurant of the Year – Porteno, Sydney NSW
Outstanding Contribution to Hospitality – The Hemmes family, Merivale
Bar of the Year – Shady Pines, Sydney, NSW
Sommelier of the Year – Giorgio De Maria, 121BC, Sydney, NSW
Wine List of the Year – Ortiga, Fortitude Valley, Queensland
Maitre D’ of the Year – Lara Marro, Vincenzo’s Cucina Vera, Parkside, South Australia.
- Published in News
Another Product Recall – baby food
Dear Stakeholders
Please find below information on a recent Australian consumer level food recall and is included here with permission from Food Standards Australia New Zealand.
This information is also available on our website at www.foodstandards.gov.au
Date Notified To FSANZ: 19 August 2011
Food Type: Baby food
Product Name: Rafferty’s Garden Italian Lasagne Premium Baby Food 10 months+
Package Description & Size: Tear-top packet 170g
Country of Origin: Australia
Date Marking: Best Before 26/MAY/12 and 03/JUN/12
Australian Distribution: Coles and Woolworths supermarkets nationally
Overseas Distribution: FSANZ has no further information on distribution outside Australia.
Reason for Recall: Foreign matter (plastic)
Comments:
Problem: The recall of the above product is due to foreign matter contamination – plastic.
Food safety hazard: Food products containing plastic may cause injury if consumed.
What to do: Consumers should not eat this product. Customers should return the products to the place of purchase or directly to the address below for a full refund.
For further information please call:
(02) 9969 3788, fax (02) 9969 7400, or email info@raffertysgarden.com
Rafferty’s Garden Pty Ltd,
Building 26 Best Avenue, Mosman, NSW, 2088
- Published in News
Retail fresh produce price may require display of farmer’s percentage
If a private member’s bill by both Senator Nick Xenophon and Bob Katter passes through the new session of the Australian Federal Parliament, supermarkets will be required to show what percentage of the price of their fresh produce actually goes to the farmers who grow the food.
The bill is called the Farm Gate Pricing Bill will only pass if a major party supports it.
The media advisor for the Senator, Rohan Wenn, said; “The Bill would allow consumers to see the price the supermarket is charging in contrast with the amount the primary producer is receiving. Independent grocers would be exempt but major supermarkets would be required to publish the farm gate prices at point of sale and also on their websites. Farmers have previously expressed concern that there is a huge gap between what the supermarkets charge and how much the farmers are paid for fresh produce.”
The two major supermarkets were either not commenting about the potential new requirement or stated that when farm gate pricing was investigated in 2008 by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) it was not considered “a significant problem”.
A spokesperson for Choice, Ingrid Just, said, “We think it is better if the position of a supermarket ombudsman is created to become the independent arbitrator. There is only so much information that consumers can take in when juggling kids, crowds, and shopping lists at supermarkets. An ombudsman would allow for a dedicated focus for people with grievances to take them to. The information would be better in the hands of a regulator who could follow through on what needs to be done. Meanwhile, it is also up to the ACCC to see if there is a misuse of market power.”
Written by Rachelle Williams – The Green Food Safety Coach
Twitter – GreenFoodSafety
- Published in News
Significant GM case
Genetic modification is the process of manipulating the genes of a species to achieve desired characteristics. It can be the adding of a gene from carrots to white rice to significantly increase the Vitamin A content of that rice and thus improving the nutrient intake of a large portion of the consumers of rice. It can also be the addition or removal of genes from a plant to increase it’s resistance to certain types of pests, and therefore significantly reducing the amount of pesticides used.
Unfortunately some of the plants that have been genetically modified (GM) are not able to produce seeds for the next year’s crop, so farmers using this species need to purchase more seed every year. This is an excellent money earner for the business that developed the genetically modified plants for a set number of years, but can be a major issue for the farmer.
A GM crop may also produce seeds that spread to another farmer’s paddock and alter that crop. This can have significant impact, especially if the second farm is practicing organic practices, as there is a nil tolerance for GM contamination in Australia.
Steve Marsh, an organic farmer from Western Australia, is currently suing his neighbour for loss of organic certification due to genetically modified canola seed allegedly contaminating his property. This is an important case as it highlights the importance and necessity to introduce national laws to control crop contamination by GM seeds and plants.
There are only a very small number of genetically modified food crops allowed to be grown and sold in Australia and they are tightly monitored by the Gene Regulator but the potential cross contamination of non GM crops is not yet as tightly controlled. Those foods that contain GM material must be clearly labelled according to the Food Standards Code.
The case is being supported by the Safe Food Foundation amongst other groups.
It will be interesting to see what happens with this court case and the flow on effects across Australia.
Written by Rachelle Williams – The Green Food Safety Coach
Twitter – GreenFoodSafety
- Published in News
Bacterial adherence to stainless steel
A recent article in the Journal of Food Protection®, has highlighted that the roughness of a stainless steel surface has an impact on the adherence of bacteria like E.coli.
Food Grade stainless steel is the material of choice for food contact surfaces due to it’s ability to withstand the conditions in food environments and still be cost effective. This type of stainless steel has a roughness finish of 4, which is approximately half way through the scale.
The article shows the research and conclusions from a study done by Goulter-Thorsen, Rebecca M.1; Taran, Elena2; Gentle, Ian R.3; Gobius, Kari S.4; Dykes, Gary A.5. It involved the use of stainless steel of three roughness levels – 2- unpolished, 4 – food grade and 8 polished surface, and assessing the attachment of three strains of E.coli to each surface.
The attachments were done by the surfaces being exposed to cell suspensions with periodic swirling and then tested for detachment through both a blotting technique and atomic force microscopy after enumeration.
The results tend to indicate that E.coli is more likely to have a greater attachment to smoother surfaces, but is also more likely to be easily detached from that surface as well.
The results for the 4 roughness level were variable and therefore more work may be required to determine if this is the ideal type of stainless steel to be using in food businesses.
Source: Journal of Food Protection®, Volume 74, Number 8, August 2011 , pp. 1359-1363(5)
Written by Rachelle Williams – The Green Food Safety Coach Twitter – GreenFoodSafety
- Published in News