'Special-purpose’ foods

Press, 15 November 1977, Page 3

'Special-purpose’ foods

Wellington reporter Substantial changes to the Food and Drug Regulations, 1973, on “special-purpose foods” — which meet a particular nutritive need or a special dietary use — have been recommended by the Health Department’s food standards committee. The committee has not completed its decisions »nd is seeking the comments of interested parties. These have to be made by January 31, 1978. The committee’s chairman (Dr W. Murphy) said the opinion of members of the medical and dietetic professions had been sought in preparing the report. The internationally-used term “special dietary 7 foods” was discarded in favour of “special-purpose foods” because the committee did not want people thinking they were or. special diets, as implied by the wording “special dietary.” Such

people should be considered as having a normal “diet” With certain modifications. Three main categories of special-purpose foods were suggested as First: Gluten-free foods, low-protein foods, fatmodified foods, carbohy-drate-modified foods, and low-reduced energy foods. Second: Foods which meet the special physiological needs of infants and young children, including infant formula foods, and supplementary foods for infants and young children. Third: Formula foods (other than infant formula). A number of prohibitions have been recommended for the labelling of special-pur-pose foods. The main one is that the label of the package of any food listed as a “special-purpose” food shall not contain the name of any disease or disorder. This is a modification of the present prohibition. At present, the word “diabetic”

may appear jn association with the name of a food. Medical opinion considers that people consuming special-purpose foods should feel that they are on normal diets with only minor modifications, so the name of any disease should not be included in the name of any food. Other recommendations on labelling include one that the term “health” should not be used in association with the name of a special-pur-pose food and the name of the food should not imply “health-giving” or “healthimproving” qualities. Also, no lable on a package of special-purpose food should contain a statement or recommendation from anyone or from any association, or contain any testimonial. The report recommended that foods for infants and young children should not contain preservatives, an-

tioxidants, artificial sweeteners, colouring substances, or nitrates or nitrites, “We did not wish to permit these additives in infant foods as they are not necessary or desirable,” Dr Murphy said. “Because of the limited life of some vitamins in infant formula (such as vitamin C) it is necessary to lable these products with a packed-on date. together with an indication of the shelf life of the product.” However, some infant foods may require the use of food conditioners, and Dr Murphy has invited the food industry to say which food conditioners it considers necessary in various infant food products. The net result of the proposals, if implemented, would be to enlarge greatly the range of classes of special-purpose foods beyond the scope of sections 233-236 of the 1973 regulations.