Jump to content

Talk:United Kingdom food information regulations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old talk

[edit]

Some attempts to enforce the provisions relating to the name of the food have been widely misreported and distorted by the press, leading to almost hysterical outbursts by less informed members of the public who resolutely refuse to believe the enforcements officer's version of events despite their own lack of direct knowledge thereof and the known habits of disinformation from much of the tabloid press

Examples include

'Dragon' sausages where a simple attempt to get them labelled with the basic name of the food resulted in the trader and the press concentrating on the fact that no-one would think the sausages contained dragon while disregarding the fact no-one would know what they actually did contain because of inadequate labelling.

'Robin' cakes where a similar attempt led to an equally vociferous outburst about there being obviously no robin in the cakes. However, here it should be noted that the Robin in question was supposed to Robin the frog (Kermit's relative) from the Muppet show and that the trader may be trying to elicit public sympathy in the hope of avoiding action over copyright matters. Esthameian 00:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Codex guidance in the section of Notes....

[edit]

does not have a scope section for the whole document. This may confuse agricultural, including horticulture, industries where cereal and horticultural products are manufactured and whether these products are categorized as food finished products or food raw materials. Are there any Codex updates regarding on this agricultural issue--222.64.209.0 (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know where the following org is located, I mean its physical address.???

http://www.plucodes.com/aboutus.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.24.108 (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give examples of "Approved Name" regarding the food additive issue....

[edit]

http://www.tga.gov.au/DOCS/pdf/aan/aanherb1_2.pdf

http://www.tga.gov.au/docs/html/aan.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.209.0 (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is not many formal discussions around about the legitimate use of...

[edit]

Best before date for food labeling http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+%22best+before+date%22&btnG=Search --222.64.208.207 (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

labeling guidance

[edit]

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodLabelingNutrition/FoodLabelingGuide/default.htm

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodLabelingNutrition/ucm059055.htm --222.64.208.207 (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/guidancenotes/labelregsguidance/usebydateguid --222.64.208.207 (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More guidances searched by today http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Labeling_Requirements_Guide.pdf
--222.67.208.102 (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/food/industry/label_regs.htm --222.67.208.102 (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.afgc.org.au/cmsDocuments/AFGC%20Guide%20to%20Date%20Marking%20of%20Food%20-%20Sept08.pdf
The definition of Best before date is described. However, the definition is not traceable when it is referred to Standard 1.2.5 -- What is it...???...the document has not said--222.67.208.102 (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another definition, but it doesn't look like formal, as the publishing on the page doesn't have an identifier which can be reffered to other than URL, if required. http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/advice/advice-business-fdlabelsum8.cfm
My another question about this publishing is that how the retailers determine the product with good quality and fit for consumption after the end of best before date ...??? - scientifically, or empirically...???--222.67.208.102 (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following publishing has got the same problem as the above ones http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/consumers/food-safety-topics/food-processing-labelling/food-labelling/fact-sheets/fs-2003-02-date-labelling.htm
--222.67.208.102 (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public opinion and my view

[edit]

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Product-Categories/Food-safety-and-labelling/Questions-and-confusion-as-best-before-label-debate-intensifies

http://www.wrap.org.uk/retail/food_waste/date_labels_and.html --222.64.208.207 (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me, if the disposal of using best before date is costly, then an alternative solution is to add the label something like worst after date or dispose after date, so that the boundary of safe food usages is specified--222.64.208.207 (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, both before and after boundaries have to be scientifically backed up--222.64.208.207 (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The doted text of the article under Best before date may have to be changed....

[edit]

according to the following, as it is using 90 days instead of using 3 months http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/labeti/guide/ch2ae.shtml --222.67.208.102 (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info about detailed labelings on when and where to use best before date http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/labeti/guide/ch15e.shtml --222.67.208.102 (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, the using of the term best before date in the above docs are not consistent and the term doesn't seem to be standardized. If it is standardized, it should be able to be referred/pointed within the doces--222.67.208.102 (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous Q&A....too

[edit]

for Best-If-Used-By http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm114299 --222.67.208.102 (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The words are not traceable in the following page
subsection B.01.007(3) of the Food and Drug Regulations http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/labeti/decisions/date.shtml --222.67.208.102 (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Food+and+Drug+Regulations&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr%3DcountryCA&aq=f&oq= --222.67.208.102 (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the problem about the determination of the product quality which is to be sold after best before date http://www.foodauthority.nsw.gov.au/industry/food%2Dbusiness%2Dissues/labelling/ --222.67.208.102 (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More ambigous info about best before date

[edit]

(1) http://www.rdg.ac.uk/foodlaw/label/a5-ex4.htm

The statements in the above page are not referenced when talking about stable

(2) http://www.rdg.ac.uk/foodlaw/label/a-5.htm Avoid expalaining what best before date is and what kind of food should carry this kind of labels in a formal and accurate words. Instead, the examples are given. To me, this kind of practice is OK for research but not OK for production mode. --222.67.208.102 (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WOW....Oh
(3) This info even says that the date marking does not guarantee a food product safety @___@ http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/concen/tipcon/date.shtml --222.67.211.41 (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(4) so does this http://www.eatwell.gov.uk/foodlabels/labellingterms/bestbefore/ --222.67.211.41 (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the words of (3) and (4) contradict to those of (1)...??? --222.67.211.41 (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that a third date marking exists around....

[edit]

and its usage seems to be different from best before date http://www.rdg.ac.uk/foodlaw/label/a5-ex2.htm --222.67.208.102 (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This info is more clearer, however the legislation mentioned is not traceable anyway http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/Images/std18_tcm9-8351.pdf --222.67.211.41 (talk) 05:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More format about date marking....

[edit]

I'm not sure if the page is authentic as it's homepage is not traceable http://www.foodsafety.gov/~dms/prodsafe.html

http://www.foodsafety.gov/ --222.67.211.41 (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info about use by date marking....

[edit]

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/InfantFormula/GuidanceRegulatoryInformation/ucm106488.htm

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/InfantFormula/ConsumerInformationAboutInfantFormula/ucm108155.htm --222.67.211.41 (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.29.94 (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)== You see. the earliest version even doesn't mention food safety, and 90 days for all food products which are applied to.... ==[reply]

for best before date
http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/32/CXS_001e.pdf --222.67.211.41 (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and there are various applications http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=best+before+date+site%3Awww.codexalimentarius.net&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi= --222.67.211.41 (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why these infos have not been referred by the latest food labeling info pages although they are old and some of them are out-dated, but the fundamental works are there--222.64.29.94 (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issuees again emphasize the importance of referencing when writing articles. It clears the confusion and misunderstanding, yet highlighting the traces of the works that have been evolved, for further improvement. --222.64.29.94 (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, verifications of these docs in print are needed--222.64.216.115 (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Law concerning labels surrounding allergens

[edit]

It might be an idea if this article were to discuss whether it is - as I believe it is - the law that if a food product contains certain foods to which many people have an allergy, such as mustard, celery or sesame seeds, then this must be stated on the packet. If this were not the case, why is it that, here in the United Kingdom, time and time again one can read that a product was "made on a line where sesame seeds are handled"? Also, given the prevalence of coeliac disease, I believe it might be law for products to state whether they contain gluten. Finally, I believe that many products have to advertise whether they are made with milk, given that so many people may have an allergy to cow's milk. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right it would be good to include that. If you can find a source to back up what you believe then please add it to the article. Smartse (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


OK here is a link: http://www.northyorks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2819

which does state that there are certain allergens that have to be mentioned if they are in food above certain levels, and it lists them. You can see that this is the website of North Yorkshire Council but it would be good to see what the website of the Food Standards Agency says on this issue. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds suitable but the link is dead for me for some reason. If you could find an FSA source that would be better. Smartse (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK here is a link which does say that the Food Regulations Act of 1996 does specify that foods have to declare whether they have certain allergens: http://www.food.gov.uk/foodlabelling/ull/ There is also a U.S Food and Drugs Administration and their website gives detail of similar regulations for an act passed in 2008. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


That Yorkshire County Council Act to which I referred just now is based on the Food Safety Act of 1990. It states that certain allergens, if not already in the name of the food, have to be included in the ingredients listed or in a special "allergens" box - the allergens listed by this website include mustard, celery, molluscs, crustaceans, sesame seeds and nuts. It also states that certain foods derived from allergies need not be listed, as they have been found to cause a risk to sufferers. 92.6.246.165 (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I said elsewhere in Wikipedia that many food labels in the United Kingdom say "Allergy advice" - contains gluten" even though coeliac disease is not strictly speaking an allergy - and I point out that this does not make them right! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The info about batch identifier.....

[edit]

--124.78.228.135 (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further information: Talk:Identifier § Info about product batch identifier.....

How to use a date mark properly as a batch identifier.....

[edit]

--124.78.228.135 (talk) 06:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable daily intake.....labeling of ingredients....

[edit]

--124.78.228.135 (talk) 06:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info about bulk foods, their labeling and their retailing....

[edit]

--222.64.22.70 (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.22.70 (talk) 05:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.22.70 (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.22.70 (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Batch related

--222.64.22.70 (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.22.70 (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.22.70 (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.22.70 (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.22.70 (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.22.70 (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info about the topic associated with Good food trading practice

[edit]

--222.67.205.209 (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--124.78.211.203 (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My recent encounter:
I bought a frozen food from TESCO in Shanghai on 22/3/2010. However, the date labeling of the food are as follows:
保质期:冷藏三天,常温一天
生产日期: 2010/03/20
产品标准号: Q/HHD-013
Made by http://www.chinazuming.cn/wwwroot/index.asp

Note: The price of the food has not been discounted --222.67.205.209 (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know which of the above guidances related to this issue, if any experts are familiar with those guidances --222.67.205.209 (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Food allergen labeling info.....

[edit]

--124.78.211.203 (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--124.78.211.203 (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Food allergen labeling info..... (continued)...

[edit]

--222.67.206.22 (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the drug labeling regulations.....

[edit]

--222.67.215.44 (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Language of the label

[edit]

Discussions of what the food label should/should not contain are plentiful. Unfortunately the basics are forgotten. Nobody mentioned what should be the language of the label. For instance, seen in the UK yesterday, Turkish product, with description in several languages but NOT in ENGLISH. I believe there is a (UK and EU) regulation which require the label to be in the language spoken/readily understood in the country where it is sold, perhaps someone can append a link to that regulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.233.216 (talk) 08:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom food labelling regulations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Kingdom_food_information_regulations&oldid=1205207016"