.gov.au. The responses relating to the Nestle Cerelac product, above, also address the questions raised here.

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download ".gov.au. The responses relating to the Nestle Cerelac product, above, also address the questions raised here."

Linda Tucker
5 years ago
Views:

1 .gov.au Friday, 21 October :04 PM In response to your further queries: Your suggests that DHHS regards Nestle Cerelac as a cereal, but the packaging clearly identifies it as infant food which is suitable for babies over 10 months old. Firstly, it is important to note that this product expired in June 2016; and that the results of testing this one single packet of product, as with all the other products tested, may not be indicative of other batches currently in the marketplace. As previously advised, whilst we acknowledge that the product is intended to be eaten by infants, that in and of itself does not necessarily mean it meets the definition of an "infant formula product" under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. Also as previously advised, the Code defines an infant formula product as "a product based on milk or other edible food constituent of animal or plant origin which is nutritionally adequate to serve as the principal liquid source of nourishment for infants". The additional information that SBS has provided includes a photo of the back label of the product, which contains some, but not all, additional information on its intended use. One statement is "Cerelac is a complementary food for babies after 6 months when breast milk alone can no longer totally cover the baby's growing nutritional requirements". Therefore, at this stage it is still not clear that this actually is an "infant formula product" for the purposes of assessment against the Code. Similarly, is there any change in advice for Complan childrens milk drink (as mentioned below)? According to your advice - Schedule 19 does permit some of these metals in varying levels in other foods. For example, arsenic is permitted at levels of up to 1mg/kg in cereal grains and lead is permitted at levels of up to 0.2mg/kg in cereals, pulses and legumes. But the level of lead permitted you ve quoted, is for in cereals, pulses and legumes, and not for a children s drink. Same goes for arsenic level that you ve quoted for cereals. Pl confirm. The responses relating to the Nestle Cerelac product, above, also address the questions raised here. Thursday 1/09/2016 1:38 PM There has been a considerable amount of effort put into responding to your questions by our experts. Below is an overall statement about the issues you raise & the information we had to deal with, plus the individual responses to each of your questions.

2 It is extremely difficult to provide definitive advice on these results, given that we do not have all the required information, and these are very technical matters. We do not have: the certificates of analysis which always tell us vital information regarding method of analysis and limits of detection, the product details for all of these products, including batch details. Note that two products, from what can be seen in the photos supplied, have actually expired. As the products are all reported as being imported, the inspection and testing of these foods falls under the responsibility of the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, under its Imported Food Inspection Scheme. All imported foods are classified at the border into one of two categories, according to the level of risk posed to public health - either risk foods or surveillance foods. The category that a food falls into determines what, if any, product assessment and/or testing is conducted at the border by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. How a food is classified into the risk category food group is set by the Commonwealth's Food Standards Australia New Zealand, who undertakes a risk assessment. This is informed by the nature of the food, how it is produced, and whether there has been a history of issues internationally with the particular food type. For example, cooked poultry and some cheeses are classified as risk foods these are foods that pose a medium to high risk to public health. Foods in this category are tested for potential hazards at a much higher rate than foods, such as confectionary products, that pose a lower risk. Foods in the category of surveillance foods are randomly selected for testing at the border at a rate of five per cent. More information on the Imported Food Inspection Scheme in Australia, as well as advice on whether the foods SBS tested were risk or surveillance foods, is available at the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources website at: 1. Does the 0.074mg/ kg level of DDT found in the Verka ghee (clarified butter) comply with FSANZ / international acceptable levels?

3 Currently, DDT is not an approved or registered chemical for use in Australia. However, because of past use it is still in the environment and can sometimes be detected in food commodities. Limits applied to such chemicals are described as extraneous residue limits in the Code. Clause of Standard defines the meaning of extraneous residue limit (ERL) of agvet chemicals in foods, and Schedule 21 of the Code lists the agvet chemicals and specific food commodities with established ERLs. In Schedule 21 of the Code, the ERL for Milks (in the fat) is E1.25 (the E denotes it is an ERL and not an MRL). This means milks in the fat products can contain DDT levels up to 1.25mg/kg. Milks in the fat would include products such as ghee. Given SBS analysed the ghee product at 0.074mg/kg it would comply with the current Code. Note, this product has an expiry date of tomorrow 01/09/ We found 0.22 mg/kg of Carbendazim and 0.066mg/kg of Imidacloropid in MDH tawa fry masala (a spice). It also contains traces of the insecticide Pyraclostrobin and the insecticide Acetamiprid. According to our expert, if batches of this are found to have the above mentioned chemicals, this product should be recalled and not sold in Australia. Do you agree? The relevant section of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code for levels of these chemicals is Standard Agvet Chemicals, and the corresponding Schedule 20 - Maximum Residue Limits. In order to assess this product accurately, more information is required. We acknowledge that SBS advises it is a spice, but we need the product details to confirm this. If it contains other ingredients such as maltodextrin, it would not necessarily be assessed as a spice for the purposes of determining what chemicals are permitted under Schedule 20. It is difficult to comment on whether the product should be recalled. Food recalls are only conducted where foods are determined to constitute a public health risk. However based on our preliminary toxicity risk assessment calculations, it is unlikely that the levels detected would constitute a health risk. It should be noted that the carbendazim is permitted in other foods in the Code in varying levels. For example, in dried chilli pepper, carbendazim is permitted at levels of up to 20mg/kg. It is a similar situation for imidacloropid. 3. We found mg/kg of lead in a baby cereal (recommended for use from 10 months +). Is that acceptable, since there are two MLs mentioned by

4 FSANZ for lead one level applies to infant formula and the other applies to cereals. This particular product (Nestle Cerelac) was also found to contain 0.013mg/kg of Arsenic, 0.030mg/kg of Chromium and 3.9mg/kg of Copper. Can this be regarded as safe? The relevant section of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code for levels of the metals listed is Standard Contaminants and Natural Toxicant, and the corresponding Schedule 19 - Maximum Levels of Contaminants and Natural Toxicants. Limits have been set in Standard when it has been determined that there is a potential risk to public health and safety if the prescribed limits in Schedule 19 are exceeded. This means that where limits are not set in this Schedule, there is no breach of the Code. Based on the photos provided of this product, it appears that this product is not an infant formula product - which is defined in the Code as "a product based on milk or other edible food constituents of animal or plant origin which is nutritionally adequate to serve as the principal liquid source of nourishment for infants". Therefore, if the product is not represented or intended to be the principal nourishment, then it would probably be determined to be a cereal product which would mean that the Food Standards Code would permit lead at a level of 0.2 mg/kg, meaning that the levels found would not breach the Code. Further, if we assess this product as a cereal product, arsenic is permitted at levels of up to 1mg/kg hence the levels found are not a breach. There are no levels set in Schedule 19 for chromium and copper in cereal products, therefore their detection does not breach the Code. **This advice was updated in a later Another childrens product (Complan powdered milk drink) is found to contain 0.032mg/kg of Arsenic, 0.045mg/kg of Chromium, 3.8 mg/kg of Copper and 0.12 mg/kg of Lead. An expert flagged it as a concern for children how does FSANZ look at it, if children as little as 3 or 4 years of age were given this? The relevant section of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code for levels of these metals is Standard Contaminants and Natural Toxicant, and the corresponding Schedule 19 - Maximum

5 Levels of Contaminants and Natural Toxicants. Limits have been set in Standard when it has been determined that there is a potential risk to public health and safety if the prescribed limits in Schedule 19 are exceeded. This means that where limits are not set in this Schedule, as is the case for all of these metals in dairy products (which we understand this food to be), there is no breach of the Code. Schedule 19 does permit some of these metals in varying levels in other foods. For example, arsenic is permitted at levels of up to 1mg/kg in cereal grains and lead is permitted at levels of up to 0.2mg/kg in cereals, pulses and legumes. Note, this product is past its use by date. 5. We tested some Australian grown rice which didn t show any traces of pesticide. But a brand of Pakistani basmati rice was found to 0.035mg /kg of the pesticide Chlorpyrifos, another had mg/kg of the fungicide Piperonyl butoxide and yet another had 0.05 mg/kg of Propiconazole. Is this a concern, since rice is a staple food? The relevant section of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code for levels of these chemicals is Standard Agvet Chemicals, and the corresponding Schedule 20 - Maximum Residue Limits. Schedule 20 does not set a limit for any of these three chemicals in rice, and therefore the presence of them would be regarded as a breach of the Code. Schedule 20 does allow these chemicals in varying levels in other foods. For example, to consider some comparable foods - chlorpyrifos, and propicanazole are permitted in cereal grain at levels of up to 0.1mg/kg, 40 mg/kg and 0.05mg/kg respectively. Based on our preliminary toxicity risk assessment calculations, it is unlikely that the levels detected would constitute a health risk. For instance, an individual would need to eat 400kg of this rice in a 24 hour period for any health affect. 6. We found Buprofezin mg/kg in a sample of rice, and there's no recommended MRL for it - either for rice or grains. Does that make this rice non-compliant with FSANZ standards? For buprofezin in rice, we go to standard (Agvet Chemicals) and Schedule 20, which sets the maximum residue limits (MRL) for such chemicals in the Code. The Schedule lists a large number of chemicals in alphabetical order, and underneath each chemical it lists food types and the MRL that each

6 food is permitted to have of that chemical. In this standard, where a food is NOT listed under a chemical it means a MRL has not been set and therefore that food is not permitted to have any of that chemical in it. So, rice containing buprofezin is a breach of the Code. However, it is not necessarily a public health risk.

Short guide for industry to the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion in Standard Nutrition, health and related Claims

Short guide for industry to the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion in Standard 1.2.7 Nutrition, health and related Claims May 2016 Disclaimer Food standards in Australia and New Zealand Food Standards