2.4.1 Section 29 2.4.1.1 Consideration of costs and benefits In June 2016, the OBPR advised that, based on the information provided, the Application appears to be machinery in nature and will not have adverse impacts on business, community organisations or individuals. Therefore, a Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) is not required. However, FSANZ has considered the costs and benefits of the regulatory options for the purposes of section 29. This is not intended to be an exhaustive, quantitative economic analysis and, in fact, most of the impacts that are considered cannot easily be assigned a dollar value. Rather, the assessment considers the qualitative impacts of each option, deliberately limited to broad areas such as trade, consumer information and compliance. In reaching its decision to prepare a draft variation, FSANZ considered two options: Option 1: Prepare a draft variation to the Code to permit the use of IMO as a novel food in all foods except infant formula products, infant foods, and formulated supplementary food for young children. Option 2 Reject the Application. For Option 1: Consumers may benefit as foods containing IMO would provide an alternative sweetener on the market, possibly with a preferred taste profile. Additional products may become available due to the availability of IMO for Australian and New Zealand food manufacturers, and the access to imported food products containing IMO that are currently manufactured overseas. Food manufacturers would have an alternative bulk sweetener available which could provide an opportunity to reformulate or develop new products. Any increased costs would be a business decision based on expected returns. Government enforcement agencies may have some costs to validate the analytical method of analysis for IMO, and if they choose to analyse for the presence of this sweetener. Given the voluntary nature of the addition of IMO, its addition will occur only if there is demand from consumers because of the enhanced attributes of the product (taste, cost or health) or other benefits (technological or cost) to be obtained by manufacturers. No harms or costs have been associated or identified with consumption of IMO for most consumers. However, individuals with sucrose-isomaltase deficiency will not gain any potential benefit from the use of IMO in foods. For Option 2: Any benefits identified above would be lost through maintaining the status quo. In conclusion, FSANZ considers that the direct and indirect benefits that would arise from a food regulatory measure developed or varied as a result of the Application are highly likely to
2.4.1 Section 29 2.4.1.1 Consideration of costs and benefits In June 2016, the OBPR advised that, based on the information provided, the Application appears to be machinery in nature and will not have adverse impacts on business, community organisations or individuals. Therefore, a Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) is not required. However, FSANZ has considered the costs and benefits of the regulatory options for the purposes of section 29. This is not intended to be an exhaustive, quantitative economic analysis and, in fact, most of the impacts that are considered cannot easily be assigned a dollar value. Rather, the assessment considers the qualitative impacts of each option, deliberately limited to broad areas such as trade, consumer information and compliance. In reaching its decision to prepare a draft variation, FSANZ considered two options: Option 1: Prepare a draft variation to the Code to permit the use of IMO as a novel food in all foods except infant formula products, infant foods, and formulated supplementary food for young children. Option 2 Reject the Application. For Option 1: Consumers may benefit as foods containing IMO would provide an alternative sweetener on the market, possibly with a preferred taste profile. Additional products may become available due to the availability of IMO for Australian and New Zealand food manufacturers, and the access to imported food products containing IMO that are currently manufactured overseas. Food manufacturers would have an alternative bulk sweetener available which could provide an opportunity to reformulate or develop new products. Any increased costs would be a business decision based on expected returns. Government enforcement agencies may have some costs to validate the analytical method of analysis for IMO, and if they choose to analyse for the presence of this sweetener. Given the voluntary nature of the addition of IMO, its addition will occur only if there is demand from consumers because of the enhanced attributes of the product (taste, cost or health) or other benefits (technological or cost) to be obtained by manufacturers. No harms or costs have been associated or identified with consumption of IMO for most consumers. However, individuals with sucrose-isomaltase deficiency will not gain any potential benefit from the use of IMO in foods. For Option 2: Any benefits identified above would be lost through maintaining the status quo. In conclusion, FSANZ considers that the direct and indirect benefits that would arise from a food regulatory measure developed or varied as a result of the Application are highly likely to
A1123%20IMO%20as%20a%20novel%20food%20CFS.docx