2352

NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE

No. 89

Polydextrose is already permitted in these products in small amounts as a humectant in the New Zealand regulations, not in greater amounts as a bulking agent.

Vegetable Gums for Coating Raw Peeled Potatoes (A252). To permit the use of agar, alginic acid and alginates for coating raw peeled potatoes—draft variation to Standard F1—Vegetables and Similar Foods. The New Zealand regulations do not specify that these substances can be used as a coating on raw peeled potatoes.

Silicon Dioxide in Shredded or Grated Cheese (A292). To permit the use of silicon dioxide as an anti-caking agent in shredded or grated cheese at a maximum level of 20 g/kg—draft variation to Standard H9—Cheese and Cheese Products. The New Zealand regulations do not specify that silicon dioxide may be used in these products.

Titratable Acidity of Ultra-pasteurised Whipped Thickened Cream (A253). To redefine the maximum titratable acidity for ultra-pasteurised whipped thickened cream to 2500 mg/kg—draft variation to Standard H2—Cream and Cream Products. New Zealand does not specify the maximum titratable acidity for this product.

Mercury in Ling Fish (A296). To allow the mean permitted mercury levels for ling (fish) to be increased to 1.0 mg/kg—draft variation to Standard A12—Metals and Contaminants in Food. The New Zealand regulations specify that the permissible proportion for mercury in fish and fish products is 0.5 mg/kg.

gn5385

Australia New Zealand Food Authority—Food Standards

The following notices are made pursuant to the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act 1991—All correspondence, including requests for further information on the matters detailed below, should be forwarded to the following:

Standards Liaison Officer
Australia New Zealand Food Authority
P.O. Box 7186
CANBERRA MAIL CENTRE ACT 2610
AUSTRALIA
Tel: (00 61 06) 271 2219
Fax: (00 61 06) 271 2278

or

Ms Elizabeth Flynn
Acting Manager, New Zealand Operations
Australia New Zealand Food Authority
The Terrace
WELLINGTON 6036
Tel: (04) 473 9942
Fax: (04) 473 9855

Notice Pursuant to Section 17

Protection Against Photodegradation of Milk (A288). The authority received application A288 on 28 September 1995 from Mrs Janet Rundel on behalf of Mothers Opposing Pollution to require that all milk packaging protect milk vitamin content from photodegradation.

Pursuant to section 15 of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act 1991, the authority has made a full assessment and has decided to reject the application for the following reasons:

1. The vitamins of which milk is an important source are available in abundance from the Australian food supply; dietary intakes of these vitamins are likely to be adequate where milk is consumed in recommended amounts, irrespective of its packaging.

2. Package type has little impact on the content of the nutritionally-important vitamins in milk under current Australia and New Zealand market, retail and distribution conditions.

3. Where existing intakes of these vitamins are inadequate, dietary modelling demonstrates that the maximum theoretical increase of vitamin content of milk will have little impact on the adequacy of these intakes.

4. There would be an insignificant benefit to public health from mandating light transmission criteria for milk packaging.

5. A statutory requirement for all milk packaging to meet strict limits on light transmission would place an unnecessary burden on a significant proportion of the milk packaging industry and be likely to increase the price of milk for consumers to who now purchase milk in translucent containers.

6. Differential price changes may confer an advantage on one segment of the milk packaging market over another which, if sufficient, may result in a restriction of present consumer choice.

7. There are no New Zealand, Codex or international food standards that require milk packaging to comply with limits on light transmission.

In view of the assessed lack of benefit to public health, the authority also determined that:

• mandatory labelling of milk packaging to alert consumers to the potential impact of light exposure on milk vitamin content is inappropriate because it would make reference to only one factor potentially affecting milk quality, and it may unnecessarily reduce consumer confidence in the overall nutritional quality of milk; and

• mandatory establishment of an industry code of practice to minimise exposure of milk to light is also inappropriate because of the insignificant benefit to public health and the additional costs of implementing and monitoring a new code.

Notice Pursuant to Section 22

Review of the Provisions for the Statement of Ingredients (P143). The authority has prepared proposal P143 to review the current provisions for the statement of ingredients.

The authority will now make a full assessment of this proposal. To assist in the process, the authority invites written submissions on matters relevant to the proposal by 22 November 1996.

gn5386