- Print Friendly - Help

Application A601 – Definition of “Wine-based Beverage” – Initial Assessment Report

16 July 2008

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Assessment Report (IAR) for this application. The New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) has the following comments to make.

I note that NZFSA commented on many of the issues relevant to this application in its earlier submission on A571 – Prescribed Name for Wine Products. NZFSA is of the view that this application should not be supported for many of the same reasons it did not support A571.

NZFSA supports option 1 – Reject the Application thus maintaining the status quo.

Name of beverages made to the Wine Product Standard

The IAR states (page 3) that definitions of “wine” and “wine product” exist for the purposes of specific compositional requirements and not for the purposes of naming these products for consumers. Accordingly, the terms “wine” and “wine product” are not explicitly required to be used on labels or in representing these products. It is also noted in the IAR that the absence of a mandatory labelling requirement does not prevent the voluntary use of these terms on labels.

In accordance with the general labelling requirements of the Food Standards Code (FSC), a “wine product” should not be labelled in a way that confuses it with wine. If the beverage is not specifically described as a “wine product”, it must be described in a way as to “indicate the true nature of the food” (see clause 1(1)(b) of standard 1.2.2).

The second example provided by the Applicant in section 2 of the IAR (page 5), in relation to the labelling of “wine product”, is in our view an incorrect labelling of the product. The example provided by the Applicant is ”Wine Product of Australia”. This is, in our view, a highly ambiguous statement, which can be made perfectly clear by stating: “Wine Product. Product of Australia”.

The second question for submitters on page 7 of the IAR is, in our view, unclear. Submitters are asked if the declaration “wine product of Australia” is misleading. In our view, this is not a fair question, as the label is ambiguous. The example can be clarified by stating: Wine Product. Product of Australia. This wording would elicit a different response from submitters. It is important that any research that the applicant supplies in support of A601 uses examples of wine product labelling that is not ambiguous.

Furthermore, we believe the complaint referred to on page 5 of the IAR is not, in and of itself, a ground to support the matters raised in A601. It is misleading to describe a Wine Product as a “crisp white wine”. This is a matter of possible misleading trade practise and therefore a matter for the relevant enforcement authorities. This example does not directly relate to or support A601 and a change to the wine products name and definition that the Application promotes.

Particular Issues for New Zealand if A601 results in a change to the definition of Wine Products

The New Zealand Wine Act 2003 aligned a number of definitions, including the definition of “wine product”, with the definitions in the FSC. If the definition of wine product in the FSC was amended, the Wine Act 2003 would likely require amendments to ensure consistency of terminology. This would be a significant and resource intensive process that would depend on the New Zealand legislative programme and the priorities of the government of the day to ensure completion. A change in definition would therefore need to be based on a matter of considerable significance to warrant the costs involved with making a change.

Removal of the 70% criteria in Wine Products

The applicant proposes replacing the 70% criterion for wine in wine products with a less specific reference to “predominantly”. No information on the reason for this change is provided by the applicant. Until more information is provided, NZFSA does not support the proposal to remove the specific compositional requirement for wine products to contain at least 70% wine. We note that the 70% criterion is consistent with the “Fruit wine and/or vegetable wine product” standard and that a change would create a disparity between those standards.

Prescribing the name “wine based beverage”

Another aspect of the proposal is the suggestion by the Applicant that the name “wine-based beverage” should be prescribed. This would mean that the term “wine product” could not be used to name food. The costs to industry associated with prescribing a name are significant and must therefore be well considered and justifiable. Prescribed names are a requirement in the FSC only when there are public health and safety concerns or consumer issues that mean a name should be prescribed. The Applicant has not, in our view, demonstrated that a prescribed name is needed or that the costs to industry are justified.

Consumer Research

The IAR states (page 5) that FSANZ has requested the Applicant provide evidence regarding the nature and extent of consumer misunderstanding they are seeking to address with this application. It is vital that the wine products used in the consumer research are correctly labelled and comply with the FSC. The name of the food (wine product, or any other designation that correctly identifies the food) must be correct, and the Country of Origin labelling must also be on the label. These two requirements do not have to be together on the label. We suggest that FSANZ views the labels that the Applicant proposes to use, before any consumer research proceeds. The research would be meaningless if the labels that are used do not comply with FSC and relevant fair trading legislation.

Country of Origin Labelling of Wine in New Zealand

The IAR states (page 4) that there is no requirement under the Code for Country of Origin declarations on foods sold in New Zealand. While this is correct, it is important to note that under the New Zealand Wine Regulations 2006, that grape wine made in New Zealand (but not wine products) must be labelled in a manner that clearly indicates the country of origin of the wine (see regulation 7(1) of the Wine Regulations 2006).

Conclusion

To summarise, NZFSA strongly opposes application A601. There is no evidence of a problem with the current situation. There will likely be significant costs associated with changing the definition (in particular the cost to industry of changing labels if a prescribed name is required).

Yours sincerely