April 2018

While the catechin content of green tea infusions and similar drinks are generally safe there may be health concerns when taken as a food supplement, says a report from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

The scientific opinion from the EU science agency provides a safety assessment of green tea catechins after concerns were passed on regarding possible harmful effects on the liver in Nordic countries.

Now EFSA’s ANS Panel has provided a scientific opinion on the safety of green tea catechins from dietary sources, including preparations such as food supplements and infusions. In its report, the panel concludes that while intake of green tea catechins from green tea infusions are generally safe, there is potential for liver damage from supplementation with doses of EGCG above at 800 mg per day.

EFSA said it was unable to determine a ‘safe level’ for catechins in supplements, but noted that green tea products – and in particular supplements – should include the content of catechines and the proportion of EGCG on labels.

“The Panel recommended that studies should be performed to determine a dose–response of hepatotoxicity of green tea catechins and examine inter and intra species variability,” the scientific opinion states.

In that study 50% of products contained at least one catechin, but the presence of catechins was not indicated on the label in 40% of all cases.

According to that same data, the concentration and composition of catechins varied widely. In supplements that declared catechins on the label, the team reported concentrations ranging from non‐detectable to 486 mg/g. Meanwhile in supplements not labelled with green tea or catechins concentration were much lower and varied from 3 μg/g to 6 mg/g.

The Dutch government is to investigate bringing in a nutrition logo to encourage healthy eating, according to the health minister.

State secretary for health, welfare and sport Paul Blokhuis announced the government would consider the possible introduction of a new food choice logo after the issue was debated by MPs in the Lower House.

The Ministry will look at research studies into healthy eating logos, including a recently published survey by Dutch consumer group Consumentenbond.

The 1000-strong survey found that, overall, consumers feel positively about front-of-pack nutrition schemes, with 71% thinking they are a good idea. Just over one fifth (22%) are neutral while 5% do not think it is a good idea.

Over half of those questioned (51%) said they would like to see the UK’s traffic light scheme on the front of food package while 29% chose France’s Nutri-Score and 8% chose the Nordic region’s Keyhole.

Babs van der Staak, communications officer at the group, said: “Consumentenbond prefers a logo with a traffic light, because the survey shows that this is what consumers prefer.

“But we think the government should do further research to see what logo is best for Dutch consumers. This could be The French or the British logo or maybe a combination of both.”

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) is proposing to introduce a traffic light labelling measure, with red spots being used to warn of high fat, sugar or salt content in packaged foods.

The FSSAI said these would form the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2018.

The draft regulation states that packaged food manufacturers and firms are required to declare nutritional information such as calories (energy), total fat, trans-fat, total sugar and salt per serve, as well as per serve percentage contribution to the recommended dietary allowance (RDA).

The new label will be front-of-pack.

Other requirements in the comprehensive set of guidelines include a symbol on the label indicating whether it is vegetarian or non-vegetarian food (a green triangle or brown circle, respectively).

Red List

Most significantly, it would be mandatory for food products with high fat, sugar or salt content to display a red-coloured mark on the front-of-pack label.

“The blocks of nutrients for “High Fat, Sugar and Salt” (HFSS) food shall be coloured red as depicted below, in the case where the value of energy (kcal) from total sugar is more than 10 per cent of the total energy (kcal) provided by the 100 g/100 ml of the product; the value of energy (kcal) from trans-fat is more than 1 per cent of the total energy (kcal) provided by the 100 g/100 ml of the product; and total fat or sodium content provided by the 100 g/100 ml of the product is more than the threshold values,” the draft regulation stated.

It added: “Food Authority may introduce colour coding system in addition to marking of foods as ‘Red’ within the specified thresholds from time to time.”

Furthermore, it stated that it would be prohibited for HFSS food products to be advertised, in any form, to children.

Mandatory GM labelling

In a first, the draft regulation also stated a need to declare genetically modified ingredients on the labels.

“All food products having total Genetically Engineered (GE) ingredients of 5 per cent or more shall be labelled,” it said.

“The total GE ingredients shall be of top three ingredients in terms of their percentage in the product. The labelling shall be as: ‘Contains GMO/Ingredients derived from GMO’.”

Recently, the FSSAI also proposed introducing a traffic light labelling scheme for foods sold in school canteens and vending machines, in a bid to curb consumption of sugary drinks, heavily processed foods and confectionery by children.

The draft also stated that authorities will ensure that there will be no sale of high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) content foods such as deep-fried foods, sugar-sweetened beverages, processed foods and confectionery in or within 50m of the school premises.

In Western Australia, a similar traffic light labelling policy for food and drinks provided in some schools has had a positive impact on children’s health .

The FSSAI posted a notice on its website seeking views, comments and suggestions from industry stakeholders on the draft notification that would be the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2018.

It said that “the objections or suggestions, if any” may be posted within 60 days from the uploading of the notice or up to 30 days from the draft notification of the standards, whichever is later.

Claims that some of Pret A Manger’s products were ‘natural’, when its sandwich bread contained artificial additives, have been banned by the advertising watchdog.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a complaint by the Real Bread Campaign (RBC) that Pret misled consumers by claiming its products avoided “the obscure chemicals, additives and preservatives common to so much ‘prepared’ and ‘fast food’”.  RBC said this suggested Pret’s foods were free from artificial additives

The complaint related to Pret’s Facebook page and its website. The website stated: “Pret creates handmade natural food … doing the right thing … naturally”; and “In 1986, Pret opened the doors of its very first shop. A shop with a mission. A mission to create handmade, natural food, avoiding the obscure chemicals, additives and preservatives common to so much of the ‘prepared’ and ‘fast’ food on the market today”. The company made similar claims on its Facebook page.

In response to the RBC complaint, Pret said its ads did not claim it used only natural ingredients or that its food was additive- and preservative-free. It added that the ‘mission statement’ on its website should be seen as “an ideal state or their ultimate goal”.

Stating that it only claimed to “avoid” – as opposed to entirely eliminate – “obscure” chemicals, additives and preservatives, Pret confirmed its sandwich bread contained three Enumbers: E472e (diacetyl tartaric acid esters of mono and diglycerides), E471 (mono and diglycerides of fatty acids) and E300 (ascorbic acid). It said these were commonly found in many household brands of bread and were widely used in the industry to make sandwich bread.

Pret today (18 April), told British Baker its sliced sandwich bread contained two common emulsifiers to prevent slices falling apart when making a sandwich, and added vitamin C to help the dough rise.

“These are found in much of the bread sold in supermarkets and on the high street,” said a spokesperson. “We would really like to find a solution and our food team has been working hard trialling recipes that do not use emulsifiers. They have not yet found one that meets the standards our customers expect.”

The ASA concluded that, because the Facebook page and website contained claims that Pret’s food was “natural” when some products contained artificial additives, those claims were misleading and breached the advertising code.

Pret was told by the ASA that the material must not appear again in its current form, and that it must ensure its ads did not claim or imply food was “natural”, unless its products and ingredients were in line with consumer expectations of the term “natural”.

Real Bread Campaign coordinator Chris Young welcomed the ban.

“This sets a precedent that sends a clear message to food companies that, unless they walk the natural food walk, it’s misleading to talk the natural food talk. This ruling is good for shoppers whom the ASA is there to protect, and for the small, independent bakery and eatery owners who serve genuinely all-natural real bread sandwiches.”

The ASA did not uphold a second complaint by the RBC that Pret was misleading consumers by referring to its breads as being baked in-store, as the RBC understood the products were baked off-site and toasted in-store. The ASA said consumers were unlikely to interpret “baked in store” to mean only products that were made from scratch, and that consumers would expect this to include products cooked from frozen raw dough or part-baked dough.