SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED WITH DAFF RESPONSES: SECOND DRAFT REGULATION FOR CERTAIN RAW PROCESSED MEAT PRODUCTS

1 2 3REGULATION

NUMBERPROPOSED CHANGE MOTIVATION/ JUSTIFICATION FOR

CHANGEDAFF COMMENTS

Regulation 1

Definitions“Address” Suggest to align the definition with the

definition in R146. Definition of address in R146: “means a physical address in the Republic of South Africa and includes the street or road number or name and the name of the town, village or suburb and, in the case of a farm, the name or number of the farm and of the magisterial district in which it is situated;” Definition of address proposed in draft Regulation:"address" means a physical address and includes the street or road number or name and the name of the town, village or suburb and, in the case of a farm, the name or number of the farm and of the magisterial district in which it is situated, or in the case of imported foodstuffs, if otherwise, the name and address as provided for in the Codex Alimentarius Commission's document entitled: General Standard for the Labelling of Pre-packaged Foods, CODEX STAN 1-1985; Suggest to align the definition with the definition provided for in R146 to avoid confusion as to which definition suppliers must follow.

The definition in the proposed draft regulation will be retained since it is already aligned with the latest amendment to regulation R.146 dated 1 March 2010 of the Department of Health (please refer to regulation amendment No. R. 45 of 19 January 2012).

Definitions "best before" or "best before end" (also known as “date of minimum durability”) means the date which signifies the end of period under any stated storage conditions during which the product will remain fully marketable and will retain any specific quality for which tacit or express claims have been made,

Using the wording best before end will be misleading to the consumer, and not

Noted. The wording “best before end” will be amended to read as “best quality before date” according to the latest Codex Alimentarius general standards for the labelling of prepackaged foods (CXS 1-1985, as

1

however, beyond the date the foodmay still be perfectly satisfactory;

last amended in 2018).

"certain raw processed meat products" (further referred to as ‘raw processed meat products’ in the text) means within the scope of these regulations, the classes of raw processed meat products set out in regulation 4, and includes such products presented for sale in the frozen state;

This should state fresh and not frozen state.

Noted. However, some of the raw processed meat products are also presented for sale in a frozen state, for example frozen burgers.

“domesticated animal species”

As a definition for game/venison has now been included in the Regulations. Suggest to exclude wording domesticated from animal species definition. Also exclude certain wording from the definition.

New Proposed definition:“animal species” – means species such

as but not limited to

bovine (excluding animals from the subfamily Bovinae, e.g.

buffalo, kudus, etc.), ovine, porcine and caprine that are fit for

human consumption;

Definition of “domesticated animal species” in draft regulation:"domesticated animal species" means

species such as but

Not limited to bovine (excluding animals from the subfamily

Bovinae, e.g. buffalo, kudus, etc.), ovine, porcine and caprine

that are fit for human consumption;

Noted. However, the expression “animal species” was amended to read as “domesticated animal species” to remove any uncertainty with regards to the animal species referred to in the definition. This is in accordance with schedule 1 of the Meat Safety Act, 2000 (No. 1160 of 2000) that sets out the categories or type of animal species and divide them into domesticated animals and wild game species. It should be further noted that schedule 1 of the Meat Safety Act, 2000 (No 1160 of 2000) categorise buffalo, kudus as wild game animals, and therefore the proposed definition for domesticated animal species excludes these species. The definition for domesticated animal species will therefore be retained as is in the draft.

"edible offal" means –

(a) in the case of bird species: giblets (the heart, neck, kidneys, the clean and stripped gizzard, the liver without the gall bladder) that are fit for human consumption; and

Why ‘washed head’? Noted. However it should be demasked head, hence, the word “washed” will be amended to “demasked” to remove any uncertainty in this regards.

2

(b) in the case of domesticated animal and wild game species: blood, blood plasma, brain, cow-heels, diaphragm, gut (casings), washed head, kidneys, omentum, pancreas, pluck (oesophagus, trachea, lungs, heart, pericardium, associated lymph nodes, pillars of the diaphragm and liver or part thereof (without the gall bladder)), spleen, tail, thymus, tongue, cleaned tripe, trotters and udder (in the case of a heifer) that are fit for human consumption;

“edible offal” Remove definition and align with Red Offal definition as per the Meat Safety Act. 40 of 2004 for “animal species”

Remove definition and align with Red Offal definition as per the Meat Safety Act. 40 of 2004 for “bird species”

New Proposed definition:“red offal for animal species” means the lungs, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, tongue and demasked head of the slaughtered animal;

“red offal for bird species” means gizzards, hearts, livers, spleens and necks

Definition of “edible offal” in the draft regulation:"edible offal" means –

(a) in the case of bird species: giblets (the heart, neck, kidneys, the clean and stripped gizzard, the liver without the gall bladder) that are fit for human consumption; and

(b) in the case of domesticated animal and wild game species: blood, blood plasma, brain, cow-heels, diaphragm, gut (casings), washed head, kidneys, omentum,

Noted. However, the definition was adopted from SANS: 885 and was just modified to specify the animal species as defined in the draft regulation. Therefore, the definition will be retained as is.

3

pancreas, pluck (oesophagus, trachea, lungs, heart, pericardium, associated lymph nodes, pillars of the diaphragm and liver or part thereof (without the gall bladder)), spleen, tail, thymus, tongue, cleaned tripe, trotters and udder (in the case of a heifer) that are fit for human consumption;

“fat” Remove definition and align with as per the Meat Safety Act. 40 of 2004 for “animal species”

Remove definition and align with Red Offal definition as per the Meat Safety Act. 40 of 2004 for “bird species”

New proposed definition:“fat” means chemically extracted fatDefinition of “fat” in the draft regulation:means edible lipids obtained from domesticated animal, bird or

wild game species, or plant origin, or a combination thereof;

Noted. However, the definition was adopted from SANS: 885 and it was modified to specify the origin of the fat which can be used to manufacture the raw processed meat products.

"geographical indication" (GI) means an indication (name) protected in terms of an international agreement and which is used on agricultural products intended for sale in the Republic of South Africa;

Does this make provision for SA GIs e.g. Karoo, as per 8(5) (c)?

The definition will be aligned with the same definition used in the draft regulations for processed meat products. The revised definition will make provision for registered SA GIs.

"hamper pack" or "gift pack" means packaging (e.g. an open carton wrapped in transparent plastic, a sealed transparent plastic bag, etc.) other than an outer container containing multiple containers or unpacked components of raw processed meat products of the same class or of different classes, normally presented for sale during but not limited to certain special occasions, events or holiday periods (e.g. a Christmas hamper, back to school hamper, family hamper etc.);

The individual components in a hamper pack may be pre-packed or not pre-packed, depending on the nature of the products, and with the consumer demand for less packaging, legislation should not necessitate pre-packing if not required.

Noted. Provision will be made for such products which are packed in only one container with or without dividing segments, e.g. a braai pack.

“inedible Replace the definition of “inedible offal”. Suggest to New Proposed definitions: Noted. However, the definition was

4

offal” align thedefinition of “inedible material” as per the Meat

Safety Act. 40 of2004 for “animal species”Remove definition and align with Red Offal definition as per the Meat Safety Act. 40 of 2004 for “bird species”

“inedible material” means parts of an animal unsuitable for human consumption but not requiring destruction;

Definition of “inedible offal” in the draft regulation:

"inedible offal" means –

(a) in case of bird species: the trachea, lungs, crop, gall bladder and oviducts; and

(b) in the case of domesticated animal and wild game species: with the exception of bone, it includes all parts of the animal not included in the definitions for ‘red offal’ and ‘meat’;

adopted from SANS: 885 and was just modified to specify the animal species as defined in the draft regulation. Therefore, the definition will be retained as is.

“label” Addition of the word raw in the current definition for “label”

"label" means any tag, brand, mark, pictorial, graphic or other descriptive matter, which is written, printed, stenciled, marked, embossed, impressed upon, or permanently attached to a container of a raw processed meat product;

In agreement with the proposal to include the word “raw” in the definition.

Is 4.8% not supposed to read 4.8 i.e it is a factor and not a percentage?

The same definition appears in SANS 885, but in

Please clarify. Noted. There is an error in the definition - 4.8 is a factor and should not bear a percentage. The % will be removed after the figure 4.8.

5

the Annex A where examples of calculations are given, it is expressed as :

Lean meat equivalent percentage (LME %) = % protein x 4.8, therefore

12.50% x 4.8 = 60%

Can a definition for Lean meat be included to assist in interpreting “Total meat content”?

A definition for Fat is included in the Regulation.

The definition for “Total meat content” is defined as:

“Total meat content” means lean meat percent (including mechanically recovered meat, except where it is specifically excluded), plus fat percent.

A definition for Lean Meat would be helpful.

Noted. A definition for "lean meat" will be included in the draft meaning mass percent of nitrogen represented by subtracting the nitrogen contribution from non-meat proteinaceous material present in the product, from the total percent nitrogen analyzed, multiplied by a factor of 30.

“meat” Amendment of the current definition of “meat” as per R2718

New proposed definition for “meat”:

means the clean, sound and wholesome skeletal musculature and fatty tissue of any animal, bird or game species, used as a foodstuff, together with any connective tissue, bone, fat and cartilage that occurs naturally in the skeletal musculature of the dressed carcass and head, excluding the musculature of the lips, snout, scalp and ears;

Definition of “meat” in the draft regulation:means the clean, sound and wholesome

skeletal musculature and fatty tissue of any domesticated animal, bird or wild game species, used as a foodstuff, together with any connective tissue, bone, fat

Noted. However, the definition for meat is aligned with regulation R.2718 of 23 November 1990 (i.e. regulations for Boerewors and other raw species sausage). We included the words “domesticated” and “wild” to differentiate between these categories or types of animal species. The definition for “meat” will therefore be retained in the draft as is.

6

and cartilage that occurs naturally in the skeletal musculature of the dressed carcass and head, excluding the musculature of the lips, snout, scalp and ears;

"meat analogue" (also known as meat substitute, mock meat, faux meat or imitation meat) means products that –

(a) approximates the aesthetic qualities (primary texture, flavor and appearance) and/or chemical characteristics of specific type of meat; and

(b) are made from non-meat ingredients, sometimes without dairy products and are available in different forms (Coarse ground-meat analogues, Emulsified meat analogues and loose fill, etc.);

What is the significance of the ‘sometimes without dairy products’?

Noted. In agreement with the proposal to delete the highlighted words and to remove any uncertainties with regards to definition for meat analogues.

“mechanicallyrecovered

meat”

Alignment of definition to R2718 New proposed definition for “mechanically

recovered meat”:

means the pulped material consisting predominantly of

muscular tissue, collagen, marrow, and fat recovered by a

process whereby bone and meat are mechanically separated

Noted. However, the definition was adopted from the SANS: 885 which is the latest definition that is applicable which indicated the maximum limit of calcium that can be present in the MRM and also includes various synonyms for MRM.

Align the definitions that appear in both Raw processed meats and Processed meats, i.e. the definitions should be worded the same in both Regulations as both Regulations fall under Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development.

Where the same definitions appear in both Raw processed meats and Processed meats, the definitions should be worded the same.

Noted and agreed. This office will ensure that the same definitions used in the draft processed meat products regulations and the draft regulations for certain raw processed meat products be fully aligned.

7

e.g. Meat definition

Draft 3 of Processed Meats includes “residual/intrinsic blood”, whereas the definition for Raw Processed Meats does not include those words.

Other examples: Outer container, Best before differ as well

“outer container”

Addition of examples of “excluded outer containers used for

transport purposes”

New proposed definition for “outer container”:

means a container which contains more than one container of a

raw processed meat product, and includes hamper packs or gift

packs, but excludes any type of outer container in which raw

processed meat products are transported (e.g. crates/lugs etc.)

In agreement with the proposal to include the examples as indicated in red to remove any uncertainty.

If chicken skin is included as an ingredient, e.g. in an uncoated Chicken Burger, is the chicken skin seen as the “Fat” component?

Currently the definitions do not cover chicken skin. i.e. It does not appear in the definitions for:

“Meat” or “Edible offal” or “Fat” or “Total meat content”

At present, we do not know what chicken skin is regarded as i.e. meat or fat?

Please clarify.

Noted. However, chicken skin is regarded as fat and it forms part of the total meat content.

Regulation 22 Scope Scope of regulations

2. (1) These regulations shall apply only to the classes of raw processed meat products set out in regulation 4 and intended for sale in the Republic

Format wording to clearly indicate the reference to a specific regulation

Provision needs to be made for flavoured

Noted. The proposal to include the words in red in sub-regulation (2)(b) is supported and the regulation number and dated of publication will be added once the draft processed

8

of South Africa to which and under circumstances in which a prohibition in terms of section 3 of the Act regarding the sale of raw processed meat products apply.

(2) These regulations shall not apply to the following foodstuffs:

(a) Canned meat products as defined in the compulsory specification for the manufacture, production, processing and treatment of canned meat products published under the National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications Act, 2008 (Act No. 5 of 2008).

(b) Processed meat products as defined in the Regulations regarding the classification, packing and marking of processed meat products intended for sale in the Republic of South Africa (R….) published under the Act.

(c) Meat analogue products or non-meat based products that in general appearance, presentation and intended use correspond to raw processed meat products (e.g. vegan or vegetarian type processed products).

(d) Raw burgers, sausages, etc. with other ingredients for flavour

products such as raw sausage or wors products containing other ingredients, e.g. cheese, spinach and feta, etc. OR clearly indicate that flavoured products are out of scope – see comment on compositional requirement of raw sausages below.

meat regulations have been promulgated in the Government Gazette.

The draft regulation for certain raw processed meat products does make provision for raw burgers and sausage containing other ingredients and/or added flavoring - Please refer to regulation 9(1) which stipulates how a flavouring should be indicated when added to a raw processed meat product in order to render a distinctive flavour thereto.

2.(2)(b) Proposed change remove section b and replace with SANS 885

New proposed 2.(2)(b) inclusion:Processed Meat products as defined by

Noted. However, the scope of the proposed draft regulations includes

9

reference: the standard SANS 885under the standards Act, 1993 (Act. No.

29 of 1993)

the classification, packing and marking of certain raw processed meat products under the Agricultural Product Standards Act, 1990 (No.119 of 1990 – APS Act).

Since it is important to ensure that stakeholders and inspectors do not confuse the products covered by the named draft regulation underlined above with the products covered by the draft regulations for processed meat products, sub-regulation (2)(b) was added to provide clarity. The wording will, however, be amended as indicated in the response provided under “Regulation 2 – Scope” on page 9 above.

Regulation 4

4. Classes of processed meats to be presented in the same manner

as for the Processed Meat Regulation

New proposed change:Tabular format for classes proposed as for the PROPOSED PUBLICATION OF REGULATION REGARDING THE CLASSIFICATION, PACKING AND MARKING OF CERTAIN PROCESSED MEAT PRODUCTS INTENDED FOR SALE IN THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

Noted. However, after lots of consideration this office thinks it will be best to keep the format of the proposed draft as it is.

4 Classes Classes of raw processed meat products

4. Raw processed meat products shall be classified as follows:

(a) Raw banger or Raw griller.

Raw griller and Raw sizzler do not have definitions.

Do these terms need separate definitions?

Noted. These are synonyms and will form part of the definition for raw banger and raw braaiwors.

10

(b) Raw braaiwors or Raw sizzler.

"raw banger" or “raw griller” means any sausage sold under a name in which the word “banger” appears, either by itself or in combination with any other word or expression, and which complies with the compositional standards as set out in regulation 5(9);

"raw braaiwors" or “raw sizzler” means any sausage sold under a name in which the word “braaiwors” appears, either by itself or in combination with any other word or expression, and which complies with the compositional standards as set out in regulation 5(10);

Or are they synonyms?

REGULATION 4 – CLASSES OF RAW PROCESSED MEAT PRODUCTS

4. (j) Raw braaiwors or Raw Sizzler Is the word “Sizzler” limited for use in this class only? The reason is that many years ago we had a raw processed Beef product named “Steak Sizzler” which was a “Burger” type product. Please confirm.

Yes, since there is a class called Raw Sizzler the word “sizzler” will be limited for use only for this class to ensure that consumers are not confused or mislead.

Regulation 5

5(1)(b)5(2)(b)5(3)(c)5(4)(c)

The maximum fat content should revert to its original maximum value of 30% in all these sub-items. The first two should read as follows: ">10 to ≤30; and"The second two should read as follows:"shall have a fat content (as analysed) of no more than 30 percent;"

While supportive of the move to remove the disparity with the requirement of the Food, Drugs and Disinfectants Act No 13 of 1929 Regulation 2(a) we believe in this instance that the cited Regulation 2(a) should be the one to change. 40% fat content is simply too high and also unhealthy in this day and age. Fat content greater than 30% is considered exploitative and deceptive.

Noted. In agreement with the proposal and motivation for the maximum fat to be reduced to 30%. It will be amended accordingly for the classes of minced meat, mixed-species minced meat, ground meat and mixed-species ground meat.

5.(1)(b) Additional naming conventions need to be added to New proposed changes: In agreement with the proposal as

11

the table indicated in red.

5.(1)(b) Fat content for Regular Mince can be up to a maximum of 40%.

How was this determined? What data was used to determine that

this should be 40%

Can the data please be shared with industry as to how 40%

max fat content was included. We would recommend that the maximum fat be reduced to 30%.

Noted. The range for the fat content (%) claim for “regular or any similar wording” was increased due to this being a long standing practise in the industry and it was allowed for according to regulation 14(2)(a) of

12

Fat content claim Fat content (%)

(as analysed)

Extra lean, Extra trim, Extra Trimmed of fat, or any similar wording

≤5

Lean, Trim or Trimmed of fat, Steak Mince or any similar wording

>5 to ≤10

Regular Mince, Topside Mince or any similar wording

>10 to ≤40; and

the Food, Drugs and Disinfectants Act, 1929 (Act No. 13 of 1924), which was repealed by Government Notice No.656 of 10 May 2019. However, the maximum fat content will be reduced to 30% for the classes of minced meat, mixed-species minced meat, ground meat and mixed-species ground meat.

13

5.(2)(b) Additional naming conventions need to be added to the table

New proposed changes: In agreement with the proposal to add the fat content claims as indicated in red.

5.(2)(b) Fat content for Regular Mince can be up to a maximum of 40%.

How was this determined? What data was used to determine that

this should be 40%

Can the data please be shared with industry as to how 40%

max fat content was included. Recommend that the maximum fat be reduced to 30%

Please refer to this office’s above response with regards to the maximum fat content on page 12.

5.(2)(d) Addition of section (d) New proposed change:d. naming of class shall contain all listed

Noted. Provision with regards to the indication of product name for raw

14

Fat content claim Fat content (%)

(as analysed)

Extra lean, Extra trim, Extra Trimmed of fat, or any similar wording

≤5

Lean, Trim or Trimmed of fat, Steak Mince or any similar wording

>5 to ≤10

Regular Mince, Topside Mince or any similar wording

>10 to ≤40; and

meat species and shall also include the word offal when used as an ingredient in the name of the product

processed meat products manufactured from meat and offal has been made in regulation 8(1) in the draft regulations.

5.(3)(e) Remove of the word “edible” New proposed change:e. may contain red offal; and

Noted. Please refer to this office’s response on page 3 relating to edible offal.

5.(3) ”Naming should be changed to state: “Raw flavoured ground meat & offal mix” or “Raw flavoured minced mix” or “Raw flavoured meat & offal mix”

New proposed changes:“Raw flavoured ground meat” or “Raw flavoured minced mix” or “Raw flavoured meat mix” The words “meat” appear in the naming, yet edible offal is allowed in these products, but offal does not form part of the “meat definition. The naming convention as is at the current moment is not a true name of what the product contains/can contain when offal is added

Noted. A new class called “Raw flavoured ground meat and offal” or “raw flavoured minced meat and offal” or “raw flavoured meat and offal mix” has been added to make provision for the inclusion of edible offal.

5.(4) ”Naming should be changed to state: “Raw flavoured mixed-species ground meat & offal” or “Raw flavoured mixed-species minced mix” or “Raw flavoured mixed-species meat & offal mix”

New proposed changes:“Raw flavoured mixed-species ground meat” or “Raw flavoured mixed-species meat mix” The words “meat” appear in the naming, yet edible offal is allowed in these products, but offal does not form part of the “meat definition. The naming convention as is at the current moment is not a true name of what the product contains/can contain when offal is added

Noted. The new class called “Raw flavoured ground meat and offal” or “raw flavoured minced meat and offal” or “raw flavoured meat and offal mix” has been added to make provision for the inclusion of edible offal.

5(5)(h)(iv)5(6)(h)(iv)5(7)(h)(iv)

5(8)(b)(2)(a)(iv)

5(8)(b)(3)(a)(iv)

5(8)(b)(4)(a)(iv)

5(9)(g)(iv)5(10)(g)(iv)

Amend "water" to "added water, not more than 10%" in each of these sub-items

The DAFF comment on our original proposal refers to their comment on regulation 5(3) – see above. Noting the tighter limit of only 3% water of the USDA standard for raw sausages we repeat our proposal with the term "water" replaced by "added water" for the reasons described in our motivation for the change in 5(3) above. Our original motivation remains, and is copied hereunder for completeness.

Noted. In agreement with the proposal with regards to raw processed meat contain added water the maximum limit of allowed added water will be limited to no more than 10% added water in all raw processed meat products (excluding raw minced, Raw mixed-species minced meat) to ensure that the consumer is not mislead with regard to the content/composition of the product.

15

There is a tendency in the industry to add unnecessarily large quantities of water (up to 25%) to products such as these in order to mislead the consumer in much the same way as the past excessive brining of frozen chicken portions. The excess water adds nothing to the nutritional value of the product, and leaks out during cooking.

5 (5) Raw boerewors --

(a) shall be manufactured from the meat of a domesticated animal of the bovine, ovine, porcine or caprine species, or wild game, or from a mixture of two or more thereof;

Also allow the use of wild game Noted. However, the proposal to include wild game is not supported due to the fact that raw boerewors has been traditionally manufactured using only the prescribed species in the draft regulation.If the use of wild game is allowed the product will lose its traditional status and designation as ‘Boerewors’.

5 (6) Raw species sausage or Raw species wors --

(h) shall contain no added ingredients other than –

(i) cereal or starch;(ii) vinegar, spices, herbs

and/or salt;(iii) food additives; and (iv) water.

(h) May contain other foodstuffs

Provision needs to be made for flavoured raw sausage or wors products containing other ingredients, e.g. cheese, spinach and feta, etc. OR clearly indicate that flavoured products are out of scope

Noted. This was adopted as is from the regulation R.2718 of 23 November 1990. However, provision will be made for inclusion of other foodstuff in this type of raw species and mixed-species sausages and burgers (e.g. cheese sausage or cheese burger etc.).

5 (7) Raw mixed-species sausage or Raw mixed-species wors --

(h) shall contain no added ingredients other than –

a. cereal or starch;b. vinegar, spices, herbs

and/or salt;c. food additives; and d. water.

(h) May contain other foodstuffs

Provision needs to be made for flavoured raw sausage or wors products containing other ingredients, e.g. cheese, spinach and feta, etc. OR clearly indicate that flavoured products are out of scope

Please refer to this office’s response above.

16

5 (8) Raw burger, raw patty and raw hamburger patty --

(a) shall be manufactured from finely chopped or comminuted meat of a domesticated animal, bird or wild game species, or from a mixture of two or more thereof, and formed into a round, square or any other shaped patty; and

The use of coarsely chopped meat must also be allowed.

Noted. In agreement with the proposal to delete the word “finely” to make provision for coarsely chopped burgers.

5 (8) Raw burger, raw patty and raw hamburger patty --

1. Ground Burger/ Ground Patty

(b) Shall contain no edible or inedible offal, or any other added ingredients, other than spices, herbs and/or salt.

May these products not contain any seasoning?

Noted. Ground burger manufactured from raw minced meat as classified in regulation 5(1) in the proposed draft regulation which has been molded or formed into a burger or patty, therefore, seasoning or any other ingredients are not allowed in this product.

5 (8) Raw burger, raw patty and raw hamburger patty --

2. Burger/ Patty/ Hamburger Patty/ Meatball/ Frikkadel

(a) Shall contain no added ingredients other than – (i) cereal or starch; (ii) vinegar, spices, herbs and/or salt; (iii) food additives; and

(iv) water.(e) May contain other foodstuffs.

Remove contradiction in order to make provision for flavoured products, e.g. cheddar cheese burgers

Noted. However, there is no contradiction between sub-paragraphs (a) and (d) since ingredients and foodstuffs as defined in the regulations published under the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, 1972 (Act No.54 of 1972) are not described as similar components.

Also please refer to the response provided under ‘regulation 5(6)’ on pages 14 – 15 above in relation to the provision for use of other foodstuff in these products.

5 (8) Raw burger, raw patty and raw hamburger patty --

3. Value burger/ Value patty/ Value hamburger/ Any other similar name

Remove contradiction in order to make provision for flavoured products

Please refer to this office’s response above.

17

(a) Shall contain no added ingredients other than –

(iii) cereal or starch; (iv) vinegar, spices, herbs and/or salt; (iii) food additives; and

(iv) water.(d) May contain – (i) mechanically recovered meat;(ii) edible offal; (iii) colourants; and(iv) other foodstuffs.

5 (8) Raw burger, raw patty and raw hamburger patty --

4. Economy Burger/ Econo Burger/ Economy Patty/ Econo Patty/ Budget Burger/ Econo Hamburgerpatty/Budget Hamburger patty/ Any other similar name

(b) Shall contain no added ingredients other than –

(v) cereal or starch; (vi) vinegar, spices, herbs and/or salt; (iii) food additives; and

(iv) water.(d) May contain – (i) mechanically recovered meat;(ii) edible offal; (iii) colourants; and(iv) other foodstuffs.

Remove contradiction in order to make provision for flavoured products

Please refer to this office’s response above.

5.5.h (iii)5.6.h (iii)5.7.h (iii)

5.10.h (iii)

(a) shall contain no added ingredients other than –(i) cereal or starch;(ii) vinegar, spices, herbs and/or salt;(iii) Permitted food additives; and(iv) water.

As per previous meat regulation to add only permitted food additives. This would need to be specified to ensure only permitted food additives are added. . (Comment highlighted in red to be added).

Noted. Please refer to the definition for food additive in the draft regulation. If a food additive is permitted for use in a particular raw processed meat product in terms of the regulations for additives as published under the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, 1972 (Act No. 54 of 1972), such food

18

additive will also be regarded as permitted in terms of the proposed regulations for certain raw processed meat products.

CATEGORY/NAME 2:

BURGER/PATTY/HAMBURGER PATTY/MEATBALL/FRIKKADEL

This category may not contain, amongst others, Vegetable protein.

A response was given by the Department in the Summary of comments on Draft 1 (Page 29) that neither HVP or TVP is permitted, as they are both seen as ingredients.

R146 definitions state:

FCDA states:

However, if the HVP is part of a spice pack as a flavouring then it should be seen as a food additive and not an ingredient.

This category may not contain, amongst others, Colourants.

In industry, HVP (Hydrolysed vegetable protein) can be used as a flavouring and flavour enhancer in e.g. spice packs, soups. It is not consumed as a foodstuff by itself, therefore it is a food additive.

TVP (Texturised Vegetable protein) is generally used as a meat extender and a protein source and is therefore classified as an ingredient or foodstuff.

Noted. However, we still abide by our previous response that HVP or TVP when used on its own will be regarded as an ingredient. However, this office is in agreement with regards to in the case whereby TVP is used as an ingredient in the manufacturing of a foodstuff (e.g. spice pack which is normal used as an ingredient when manufacturing burger) the TVP in the foodstuff will not be regarded as an ingredient but a component of the foodstuff.

19

If using e.g. Caramel E150 (c) in a batchpack of spice in the Burger, would this not be allowed in this category?

DOH Colourant Regulation 1008 (amendment R1055) states the following can be used in:

Based on the Colourant Regulation, RAW PROCESSED meats (but not raw or unprocessed) are allowed to contain those Colourants.

Please clarify question on allowance of Caramel E150 (c)

Colourant will not be allowed in this categories of raw burger stipulated in regulation 5(10) (b) category 1 & 2 even if the colourant originate from the batchpack of spice due to the fact that both categories are derived from the compositional standards of raw minced meat (as stipulated in regulation 5 (1)), raw species sausage and raw mixed-species sausage as stipulated in regulation 5(8) & (9).

Yes. However, it should be noted that the draft regulation does not make any provision for use of colourant in boerewors, mixed species-sausages and raw species minced meat and mixed species minced meat, therefore, it is in alignment with R. 1008 of 21June 1996 as amended and administered by the Department of Health.

5 (9) Raw banger or raw griller --

(g) May contain other foodstuffs.

shall contain no added ingredients other than –

(i) cereal or starch and/or vegetable protein;

(ii) vinegar, spices, herbs and/or salt;

(iii) food additives; and

(iv) water;

Make provision for flavoured products, for example cheese grillers

Noted. Provision for inclusion of other foodstuffs in this class will be made. Please note also that regulation 9(1) & (2) makes provision on how a flavouring and Foodstuff should be indicated when added to a raw processed meat product in order to render a distinctive flavour.

20

(h) may contain mechanically recovered meat; and

(i) may contain colourants.

5.(9) Separation of classes New proposed change:Raw banger should be a class of its ownRaw griller should be a class of its own

Noted. However, it was stipulated that raw griller is synonymous to raw bangers in the previous round of comments received from stakeholders.

5.(9)(h) Compositional requirement changes for raw banger New proposed change:shall contain no mechanically recovered

meat; and

Noted. The use of mechanically recovered meat is the only parameter that differentiates raw banger and raw grillers? Based on the previous comments received from stakeholders, raw banger and raw grillers are synonymous.

5 (10) Raw braaiwors or Raw sizzler

(g) shall contain no added ingredients other than –

(i) cereal or starch and/or vegetable protein;

(ii) vinegar, spices, herbs and/or salt;(iii) food additives; and(v) water;(k) may contain other foodstuffs.

Remove contradiction in order to make provision for flavoured products

Please refer to this office’s response provided under regulation ‘5(8)(b) categories 2’ on page 8 above in relation to the difference between foodstuffs and ingredients as defined by the regulations published under the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, 1972 (Act 54 of 1972).

Regulation 7

21

7. (1) Suggest to amend Reg 7(1) to include additional

minimum requirements that must be present on the

outer container such as:

Ingredients

Allergen declaration

Storage instructions

QUID declaration

New proposed change:Suggest to amend the draft to require

information such as the ingredients,

allergen declarations, and storage

instructions etc. so as to ensure the

container contains at least the minimum

information as required in R146.

Noted. However, these marking requirements fall outside the scope and objective of the proposed draft regulations for certain raw processed meat products. The mentioned requirements are food safety related which fall within the mandate of the Department of Health (DoH). The mentioned aspects are already addressed/ prescribed in the labelling and advertising of foodstuffs regulations (R.146 dated 1 March 2010) of the DoH.

7.1(a)7.1(b)7.1(c)

(a) The name and address of the manufacturer, packer, importer, seller or person or entity on whose behalf the product has been packed in a letter size of at least 1 mm in height on all lowercase letters.

(b) The date marking (i.e. "best before" or "bestbefore end" or "use by" or "sell by" date) or the batch code or batch number, for the purpose of traceability and batch identification.

(c) The country of origin in a letter size of at least 1

mm in height on all lowercase letters.(d) t: Provided that in the case where raw processed

meat products originating from two or more countries are packed in an outer container, all the countries of origin shall be declared on such outer container.

(a) As per SANS 289 no lowercase letters may be less than1 mm in height. (Comment highlighted in red to beadded).(b) Using the wording best before end

will be misleading to the consumer.(c) Same as (a)

Noted. However, stakeholders should take note that regulations published under the APS Act are product specific while SANS: 289 relates to the “Labelling requirements for prepackaged products (prepackages) and general requirements for the sale of goods subject to legal metrology control.”

The minimum letter sizes prescribed in the proposed draft regulation will thus be retained as is.

7(1)(d) Change wording or too “and Sell By in conjunction with UB or BB”

Sell by on its own does not indicate to the consumer when the

product expires

Noted. However, in the context of this proposed draft the intention of regulation 7 (1)(d) is that the indication of the date mark should be used for the purpose of traceability

22

and batch identification.

7 (2) (2) Notwithstanding the provisions in sub-regulation (1), raw processed meat products labelled with a scale label only shall be marked at least with the following particulars:

(a) The information referred to in sub-regulation (1) (a), (b), (d) and (e) in a letter size of at least 1 mm in height.

(b) The name and address or telephone number of the manufacturer, packer, importer, seller or person or entity on whose behalf the product has been packed in a letter size of at least 1 mm in height.

Telephone number is never required on a product label. It should remain an optional addition.

Noted. However, some small butchers use only scale labels to mark their products. Scale labels have limited space to include all the marking requirements such as the address which may take up too much space, and hence in such instance a telephone number may be used instead of the complete physical address.

7.2(a) (2) Notwithstanding the provisions in sub-regulation (1), raw processed meat products labelled with a scale label only shall be marked at least with the following particulars:

(a) The information referred to in sub-regulation (1) (a), (b), (d) and (e) in a letter size of at least 1 mm in height on all lowercase letters..

As per R146 no lowercase letters may be less than 1 mm in height.

Noted. Please refer to this office’s response above on page 20 relating to lowercase letters.

Regulation 88 Indicating the appropriate product name

8. (1) The product name shall at least consist of the appropriate name for the class concerned: Provided that in the case where meat from –

(a) a single species only is used, the name of the species shall form part of the product name indicated in letters of the

It is too restrictive to require the specie to be included in the product name. The specie may be indicated via a visual element such as an illustration, a call out, a descriptor, etc.

The method of indicating the specie should not be restricted, as long as it is clear for the consumer.

The product composition is always

Noted. However, the appropriate product name of the raw processed meat product should be indicated completely on the label to remove any uncertainty with regards to the product. These requirements were adopted from regulation R.2718 of 23 November 1990 (regulations for boerewors, raw specie sausage and mixed-species sausages).

23

same size; or the specie must be clearly indicated

(b) two or more species are used,

the wording “mixed-species” in the product name shall be substituted by the names of the species used in descending order of mass: Provided further that the collective name “game”, or “venison” where applicable, may substitute the word “species” in the product name if –

(i) the raw processed meat product concerned has been manufactured from two or more wild game species only; and

(ii) the names of the wild game species used are declared on the main panel in descending order of mass in letters at least 1mm in height.

clearly indicated in the ingredient statement. It is too onerous and restrictive to require the duplicate the declaration in a product name or on the main panel. This requirement will also increase the size of the product label which negates current efforts to reduce product packaging.

REGULATION 8 – INDICATING THE APPROPRIATE PRODUCT NAME

8. (1) The product name shall at least consist of the appropriate name for the class concerned:……….

The classes are named e.g. Raw Burger, Raw patty etc.

Is the intention that the product name should consist of the appropriate category concerned?

e.g. Joey’s Econo Beef Burger, XYZ Value Beef

Please clarify Noted. However, the class – raw burgers, raw patties is already categorized into various categories. The class represents the whole group/categories of raw burgers.

24

Patty

If so, then the word “class” should rather be renamed to “category”.

Regulation 1010 (1) 10. (1) For the purpose of traceability and

batch identification each container containing a raw processed meat product shall be clearly marked with the batch code or batch number or date marking in such a way that the specific batch is easily identifiable and traceable: Provided that in the case of raw processed meat products presented for sale in a deli display fridge or counter as sliced, cut or whole, the “sell by” date of durability shall at least appear on each container.

What will distinguish a display fridge as a “deli display”?

Surely raw processed meats are not displayed with deli meats which are usually Ready to Eat due to the potential impact on food safety.

Date marking is mandatory. The use of a Sell by date is optional.

Products sold via a display fridge are unpacked. What container must provide the durability date?

Deli display fridge or counter and deli displays are similar and serve the same function.

However, some independent/small butcher shops do display raw processed meat together with processed meat product.

Noted. However, the draft regulation state clearly that the use of date marking is for traceability and batch identification purposes. It should be further noted that the mandatory indication of the date marking as prescribed by regulation R.146 of 01 March 2010 of the Department of Health shall also be complied with.

Normally these products in a display fridge are offered to consumers in a wrapper and/ or transparent plastic bag and the scale label is placed on the container indicating various markings such as but not limited to the price, product name, and date of packaging or used by date, depending on the size of the scale.

10 (2) (2) (a) If a date marking appears on a container –

(i) it shall be preceded by appropriate wording

It is unnecessary to copy text from R146.

If R146 changes, this text will have to be

Noted. However, the purpose of the requirements prescribed in regulation 10 is for the purpose of

25

“best before” and/or “use by”, and/or “sell by”, depending on the nature of the raw processed meat product concerned;

(ii) abbreviations of the preceding wording shall not be allowed, except in the case of “best before” where the abbreviation “BB” may be used;

(iii) the date sequence shall be “day-month-year” (i.e. “dd/mm/yyyy”) when numbers only are used: Provided that in the case of imported products where an altered date sequence is used, the month shall be indicated in letters, either written out in full or abbreviated, and the year shall be written out in full; and

(iv) it shall not be removed or altered by any person.

(b) If raw processed meat products are packed in an outer container which will during normal usage be discarded by the consumer, the date marking shall, if indicated, appear on each individual container that will be retained by the consumer until consumption.

amended to be aligned with R146. batch identification and traceability.

Please also refer to this office’s response to the definition for "best before" or "best before end" on pages 1 and 2 above.

Regulation 11

11 Country of origin

11. (1) The country of origin shall be declared as follows on every container:

(a) "Product of (name of country)" if all the main ingredients, processing and labour used to make the product are from one specific country;

(b) "Produced in (name of country)", "Processed in (name of country)", "Manufactured in (name of country)", "Made in (name of

It is unnecessary to copy text from R146.

If R146 changes, this text will have to be amended to be aligned with R146.

Noted. This office always strive to align the labelling requirements as far as possible with that prescribed in the general labelling and advertising of foodstuffs regulations (R.146 and the proposed R429) of the Department of Health. We, however, also frequently consult the latest Codex Alimentarius general standards for the labelling of prepackaged foods (CXS 1-1985, as amended) and adjust the labelling

26

country)", or wording having a similar meaning, when the product is processed in a second country which changes its nature; or

(c) In the case where single ingredient agricultural commodities are imported in bulk and where owing to climatic, seasonal or other contingencies more than one country may be the source of the single ingredient agricultural commodity, the wording ‘Product of (name(s) of country(ies))’ separated by the expression ‘and/or’, shall be declared on the label of the final pre-packed foodstuff: Provided that the final end product remains a single ingredient agricultural commodity.

requirements in the regulations published under the APS Act in accordance with the latest changes.

12 Raw Processed Meat Products Presented for Sale in a Display Fridge

12.When sliced, cut or whole raw processed meat products are displayed for sale in for example a deli display fridge or counter, the appropriate product name shall be indicated conspicuously in the immediate vicinity of each class of raw processed meat product concerned.

What will distinguish a display fridge as a “deli display”?

Surely raw processed meats are not displayed with deli meats which are usually Ready to Eat.

Please refer to this office’s response provided under the regulation 10(1) on page 16 above in relation to the deli display fridge.

13(5) The United Kingdoms food standard report should refer to R 146 for guidance Noted. However, Guideline 9 of regulation R.146 of 01 March 2010 also references the United Kingdom’s Food Standard Agency guidance notes, and hence it is not necessary to reference regulation R.146.

Table 2Soya Protein content

AOAC 988.10

Protein/Soy Protein,

Enzyme-Linked

Immunosorbent Assay

AOAC 988.10 is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) that can detect soy protein in raw and heat-processed meat products. With this assay, samples are compared to standard commercial soy protein and appropriate blanks.

Noted. However, the determination of Soya protein content is not limited to the proposed method and any other international recognised alternative methods that will provide equivalent results may be used.

27

According to FDA August 1999 Assessment of AOAC 988.10 “numerous factors affect the quantitative results obtained. Published and unpublished data indicated that the assay can usually only be considered semi-quantitative.”

General The layout of the Regulation numbering is not very “user-friendly” e.g.

It should rather state:

6. Requirements for containers and outer containers

(1) A container……………

For ease of reading Noted. However, the numbering system is according to the traditional or conventional numbering system employed by legislative drafters.

We have a defined specification for burger patty’s, our specification is such that we spec specific meat cuts and define processing method. It’s one of our pillars that we do not add, or shall not contain any food additives, colorants, extenders of any kind, no MDM. No offal and no preservatives ..etc.

Ito of these regulations our burgers (based on fat content) will fall under the Regular Burger Patty.  My suppliers are now telling that based on these

Please clarify Noted. However, in the context of the proposed draft regulation the wording “shall contain no added ingredients other than -...” these ingredients may be added optional.

28

proposed regulation, it shall contain “preservatives” ….and requesting permission to add preservatives. A point we have been resolute on for years.

Merge the meat regulations, the NRC, the Raw Processed Meat and the Processed Meat products.

The cost will be more for the industry if they are to be inspected for the three regulations.

The scope of the APS Act and its published regulations is to regulate the quality or composition of products. The NRCS publish their standards in terms of the National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications Act, 2008 (Act No. 5 of 2008) which may prescribe requirements for factories (e.g. layout, equipment, handling, processing, packing and storing of products) and microbiological standards. It is thus not possible to merge the standards since the mandates differ.

In the case of the raw processed meat products and processed meat products draft regulations, the regulations will be enforced by the same designated Assignee (i.e. the Agency For Food Safety) and the industry is encouraged to engage with the Assignee with regards to inspection fees and inspection frequencies etc. In this way costs for enforcement of the proposed regulations could be reduced to the minimum.

The cost of compliance for these three regulations will have a huger financial impact on the industry if not merged. Also, in view of the SEIAS that is not undertaken on regulations. is going to be an issue and we envisage a high impact, especially sing SEIAS report has not been conducted on these

Noted. However, we still abide to our previous response regarding merging of these regulations and furthermore, stakeholders and industry are encouraged to engage with the Assignee (i.e. the Agency For Food Safety) with regards to inspection fees and inspection frequencies etc. In this way costs for enforcement of the proposed regulations could be reduced to the minimum.

29

Request for a consultative meeting Members want to raise company specific and discuss unclear concerns in detail.

Noted.

General Change required throughout entire document Wording “edible offal” will be changed to “red offal”

Noted. Please refer to this office’s response on page 3 above with regard to the definition of “edible offal”.

General Change required throughout entire document Wording “domesticated animal species” will be changed to “animal species”

Noted. Please refer to this office’s response on page 3 above with regards to the definition for “domesticated animal species”.

General Fat % indications, TME indications, Total Meat Content, % red offal allowed to use per product class

All information to be shared with industry as to how this was determined

Noted. The following sources of information were used to compile the compositional specification for all product classes:

o Raw minced meat and Mixed-raw minced meat – the fat claims were adopted from regulation R. 146 of 01 March 2010 of the Department of Health (DoH)

o Raw flavoured ground meat etc. and raw mixed-species ground meat etc. – based on a desktop study conducted to look at the recommended meat-block/ recipe by the ingredients suppliers of the raw processed meat products to the industry.

o Raw boerewors, raw sausage species and raw mixed-species sausage – was adopted from regulation R.2718 of 23 November 1990 of the Department of Health

30

(DoH)

o The categories of the classes of burgers/ patties/ hamburgers were determined as follows

o The compositional standards for sausage (single and mixed species) as stipulated in regulation R.2718 of 23 November 1990 of the Department of Health (DoH) were used for single specie burger and mixed-species burger. A desktop study looking at the recommended meat-block/ recipe by the ingredients suppliers of the raw processed meat products industry was also conducted.

o Ground burger or ground patty – Adopted from Canada’s Food Inspection Services Agency’s document titled “labelling beef burger/ patty”.

o Economy Burger - Adopted from the Scottish Statutory

31

Instruments, 2014 No. 289, Food – The Product Containing Meat, etc. (Scotland) Regulation 2014, which recommends a total meat content of at least 55% for economic burgers.

o Value Burger was added as a request from the industry.

o Raw banger – total meat content and total meat equivalent was based on the SANS: 885 Edition 2 and proposed by stakeholders during the first round of comments.

o Raw braaiwors – similar to raw banger total meat just made provision for mechanical recovered meat and edible offal to be included in the product.

General Calcium content of MDM indicated as 0.2% Information to be shared with industry as to how this was determined as the new SANS 885 refers to 1.5%

Noted. The MDM calcium content was adopted from SANS: 885. The new calcium content for MDM will be amended to 1.5% to be aligned with the latest SANS: 885 document.

32