incorporates issues of Options 1 and 2 too difficult to interpret potentially too much information doesn’t represent every possible use doesn’t give level playing field for industry some foods would not be in line with regulatory requirements, e.g. nutritional supplements Option four sold’ with specific exemptions – ‘As Pros Cons fairest option of all four doesn’t align with the Code could align with ADGs as more flexible (if cost to industry continuously reviewed) complicated costing can be tailored assumes literacy flexibility continuous evolving and revisiting ongoing clarity for industry work required with innovation/new products removes room for interpretation open to errors strict lack of certainty for both industry and good compromise to address media/high consumers profile products confusing for consumers: how are they meant aligns with the NIP with the point to know what’s in/out ‘3rd rehydrated with water only and drained’, e.g. open to variation by consumers for drained vegetables and dehydrated soups consumers unlikely to understand which solves some problems related to products are sold’ or prepared’ ‘as ‘as manipulation by adding additional nutrients need to communicate/provide obvious with another product disclaimer to consumers re which products are water doesn’t add additional nutrients exempt reflective of product as it is meant to be communication is challenging consumed (intended) lack of transparency transparency of having some products definition of and ‘as ‘rehydration’ ‘hydration’ sold’ regulation required result in more industry uptake definition required comparison would be easier for stocks which would need very clear definition/rules about are sold next to each other, e.g. cubes, exemptions powders, liquids exemptions undermine the core/intended HSR good for simple rehydration and draining principles we can see a benefit if the following would create problems with companies trying exemptions are included: recipe mixes, cake to get exemptions mixes, meal mix bases (e.g. beef stroganoff), creates inconsistencies stock cubes, formulated supplementary foods outweighs benefits HSR should match NIP information, e.g. canned tuna - nutrition information provided based on drained product - therefore HSR should reflect nutrition information of drained product use of products can vary: cake/pancake mixes: some are complete, others require added ingredients canned varied additions and uses
incorporates issues of Options 1 and 2 too difficult to interpret potentially too much information doesn’t represent every possible use doesn’t give level playing field for industry some foods would not be in line with regulatory requirements, e.g. nutritional supplements Option four – ‘As sold’ with specific exemptions Pros Cons fairest option of all four could align with ADGs as more flexible (if continuously reviewed) can be tailored flexibility clarity for industry removes room for interpretation strict good compromise to address media/high profile products aligns with the NIP with the ‘3rd point rehydrated with water only and drained’, e.g. for drained vegetables and dehydrated soups solves some problems related to manipulation by adding additional nutrients with another product water doesn’t add additional nutrients reflective of product as it is meant to be consumed (intended) transparency of having some products ‘as sold’ result in more industry uptake comparison would be easier for stocks which are sold next to each other, e.g. cubes, powders, liquids good for simple rehydration and draining we can see a benefit if the following exemptions are included: recipe mixes, cake mixes, meal mix bases (e.g. beef stroganoff), stock cubes, formulated supplementary foods doesn’t align with the Code cost to industry complicated costing assumes literacy continuous evolving and revisiting ongoing work required with innovation/new products open to errors lack of certainty for both industry and consumers confusing for consumers: how are they meant to know what’s in/out open to variation by consumers consumers unlikely to understand which products are ‘as sold’ or ‘as prepared’ need to communicate/provide obvious disclaimer to consumers re which products are exempt communication is challenging lack of transparency definition of ‘rehydration’ and ‘hydration’ regulation required definition required would need very clear definition/rules about exemptions exemptions undermine the core/intended HSR principles would create problems with companies trying to get exemptions creates inconsistencies outweighs benefits HSR should match NIP information, e.g. canned tuna - nutrition information provided based on drained product - therefore HSR should reflect nutrition information of drained product use of products can vary: cake/pancake mixes: some are complete, others require added ingredients canned varied additions and uses
As%20Prepared%20workshop%20summary%20-%20Sydney.docx