Glyn Fogell - Consulting on food labelling and bar coding

23/08/2025

It looks like we're not the only ones with misleading trade descriptions. My daughter in the UK sent me pics of a "Forest Fruits" juice box with pics of berries, none of which are actually in the content when you read the ingredient list 😱

11/01/2025

Best Before, Use By, or Sell By?
There's a lot of debate over the use of date marking descriptors on foodstuffs. There have been a couple of articles in recent weeks about a major retailer selling "expired" foodstuffs. Here's the latest one: https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/customer-raises-alarm-over-expired-cold-meats-at-checkers-10ebbd91-5178-4aba-8ed0-99e13cb78804

Until recently, "expiry" dates didn't feature in SA Regulations but DALRRD has started to include this in their Regulations.

"Best Before" indicates that the quality factors (flavour, consistency, colour, and so forth) are expected to last to the indicated date and will deteriorate after that date. If you think about canned or bottled foods, in most cases, so long as the can or lid seal and any lining remain intact, and the product has not "blown" through development of gas build-up through bacterial action, the product should be safe to eat.

"Sell By" is an indicator to the retailer of when to remove a product from shelf. It doesn't necessarily give an indication of whether or not the product is still safe to eat. Not everything bought gets eaten on the same day, so this can be combined with a "Use By" date, after which the product should not be consumed. This is effectively an "Expiry Date" for the product.

While I was working for a major SA retailer I initiated a project to utilise a GS1-approved two-dimensional bar code (GS1-DataBar) that would include additional information such as a "Sell By" date for weighed perishable items. If a product was presented at a checkout with a date before the date of sale then it would be rejected and not sold. This would also support scanned culling on the counters to take the human factor out of date calculations. Unfortunately it was never implemented despite all the background coding and data management being in place. That could have prevented the problem in the article.

With the expanding use of QR codes, there is a move by GS1 to gradually remove the current linear bar codes that we are all familiar with, with a QR code containing additional data such as a link to ingredients and allergens, the manufacturer's web site (with recipe or use suggestions?), and apropriate date marking. For items weighed and priced before reaching the checkouts this is quite easy as it essentially involves a firmware update and label redesign for the scales as well as changes to the product database that the retailer has and the interface to the scale management software.

Long-life products are going to be more of a challenge as dates will depend on production batch date and unless the QR-codes are printed on the packaging on the production line it won't be easy to add variable data. These products will still depend on human interaction to remove items that have passed the applicable date.

Bottom line? Check the dates when buying. I'm not a favourite customer of the shops that I go to as I always look for the latest date on things like bread, dairy products, cold meats and fruit or veg prepacks. But when doing this I'm sometimes saddened by finding the newest stock at the front and the oldest at the back; sloppy shelf-filling and lack of management discipline which will potentially increase the amount of product written off as wastage. At the end of the day, customers pay for this through higher selling prices.

Concerned customer documents expired cold meats at Checkers, raising serious questions about food safety standards and urging consumers to check expiry dates.

08/12/2024

At last, we're seing some action!
But why does it need people to die before the regulatory authorities start doing their jobs effectively?
https://www.citizen.co.za/news/south-africa/crime/counterfeit-products-seized-agriculture-mislabeling-scourge/

Note the contact info at the end of the article.

The primary concern surrounding these incorrectly labelled products centres on consumer vulnerability.

21/11/2024

https://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-and-courts/look-durban-cops-raid-bluff-warehouses-storing-expired-food-and-fake-clothing-77398dd8-87f4-4a3a-8e49-8713a4b831d1

This doesn't surprise me at all, especially the fact that apparently a significant amount was imported. This highlights, to me at least, what I have been complaining about for a long time: Port Health is not fulfilling its mandate. All imported foodstuffs are supposed to be inspected at port of entry into South Africa to determine whether it complies with applicable Regulations under the FCD Act. Also, where a product is also included in Regulations in terms of the APS Act, DALRRD must also inspect and release.

I have had clients with imports embargoed on inspection by Port Health despite having had their packaging revised to meet RSA requirements. and I have had to write to the inspectorate showing that their understanding or application of the Regulations was incorrect. And I still see imported foods with grossly incorrect packaging appearing on the shelves, even those of large retailers who should know better. All applicable Regulations include words to the effect that no-one may manufacture, import or sell a foodstuff covered under the Regulations if it does not comply with the Regulations.

We're fighting a losing battle, it seems.

Police in KwaZulu-Natal have raided a warehouse in Durban found to be storing expired food, mostly imported from foreign countries.

27/10/2024

Guardians of our frontiers?

Last night my family decided to try a small Korean restaurant and went to eat there. The food was good and the service by the owner was very friendly. For drinks, I asked for a lemon iced tea, expecting to get one of the many well-known local brands. Instead, I was presented with a bottle imported from China bearing absolutely no English on it. My wife decided to try a Korean blueberry-flavoured rice wine and that came in a bottle with some English on it. However, although there was a warning about the consumption of alcohol and its potential dangers, the warning was not one of the mandatory warnings contained in R764/2007.

Any imported product is subject to inspection by the Port Health Authority who check for any possible hazardous or toxic substances as well as (in theory….) compliance Regulations under the Foodstuffs Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act (Act 54 of 1972). However, the checks are random, and I have even had to debate the application of some Regulations on behalf of clients when their product has been incorrectly blocked on inspection.

It makes one want to cry.

Send a message to learn more

18/09/2024

If only it would scan....😕
Vim is back on our shelves, but imported from Kenya. The bar code on the one I bought today was so faint that the cashier struggled to read the numbers. The only point of printing a bar code is so that it can be scanned. What happened to quality control? Come on Unilever and Checkers - you can do better!

08/08/2024

Caution – Shrinkflation in progress?
The Consumer Protection Act (Act 68 of 2008) provides a lot of protection to the average consumer in many areas, including misleading descriptions in any manner. Section 24 of the Act includes the following:
“Product labelling and trade descriptions
24. (1) For the purposes of this section, a trade description is applied to goods if it is—
(a) applied ….
(b) displayed together with, or in proximity to, the goods in a manner that is likely to lead to the belief that the goods are designated or described by that description; or….
….
(3) A retailer of goods must—
(a) not offer to supply, display or supply any particular goods if the retailer knows, reasonably could determine or has reason to suspect that—
(i) a trade description applied to those goods is likely to mislead the consumer as to any matter implied or expressed in that trade description; or….”

A shelf edge label displaying the description of the product and its price falls within the ambit of this section.
A few weeks ago while shopping, I noticed that there were shelf edge labels for some frozen vegetables that displayed two sizes – “1kg/750g”. I brought that to the attention of the store manager who said that he would take that up with Head Office. My wife was shopping today and noticed the same thing on the display of various Maynards gums (see the photo) where the size was described as “125g/100g”. The product itself was 125g but the comparative price reflected the cost per 100g. On an adjacent peg the bags were 100 g.

This appears to be preparation for shrinkflation and, it is my belief that this practice is contrary to S24 of the Act. Perhaps the SHOPRITE GROUP would care to explain what’s happening here?

I'm also querying with GS1 South Africa whether the same GTIN (bar code number) is being used as this is prohibited in terms of the standards.

07/07/2024

They can't say that!
R146/2010's full title is "Regulations Relating to the Labelling and Advertising of Foodstuffs"; note that last bit - "Advertising". That covers TV, print and internet.

I was browsing through the usual pile of "fallouts" that come with the Sunday newspaper and my eye was caught by the item in the picture.

The Regulations are very particular about what claims may be made about nutrients in a foodstuff; here's the relevant sub-regulations under regulation 52 for nutrient content claims:
"(3) No nutrient content claim shall be worded in any way different from the prescribed wording as specified in Table 1, namely "low", "free or virtually free", "source", "high" or "very high".
(4) No person shall use words such as "rich in" or "excellent source" or "good source" or "enriched" or "enriched with (name of nutrient)" or "with added (name of nutrient(s))" or "contains (name of nutrient(s))" or any similar wording in relation to the nutrients mentioned in Table 1 as a substitute for the prescribed wording options for claims in Table 1."

What caught my eye were the words "packed with" and "good source", so I went to the FDA food composition tables for red sweet potatoes (no sign anywhere of "O-So-Orange") and looked up the content for the three nutrients about which the claims were made.

For a claim in respect of Iron, the content per serving (124 g from the tables) it must be at least 15% of the Nutritional Reference Value, which would be 2.7 mg: the FDA tables show the content to be 0.7 g per serving which equates to 4% of NRV. Fail! And you can't say "packed with".

So, what about beta carotene? The good news is that a single serving has 1894% of the NRV (yes, you read that right) so a claim of "very high in" is permissible, but not "packed with".

And Vitamin C? The NRV for this is 100 mg so to claim "source of", the content would need to be at least 15 mg per serving. The FDA tables show this as 12.8 mg so this one fails also.

Even if this particular variety of sweet potato manages to breach the 15% barriers (doubtful in the case of Iron), the words "packed with" and "good source of" may not be used.

I used to have arguments with the advertising department of the retailer where I worked about this and they said that I was ruining their advert.

Oh, and they can't say "premium", as Reg 364/2013 only allows Grades 1, 2 or 3, or unspecified. Makes you think, doesn't it?

02/07/2024

Fortified?
I don’t often read the marketing guff on the backs of cereal and other food boxes. I mean, I’ve already bought it because it’s what I usually buy so why bother to read all that stuff? Anyway, I was decanting a 1 kg box of Kellogg’s cornflakes into an airtight plastic container and this time I did look at the back of the box. What jumped out at me (because of what I do) were the words “fortified with 9 Vitamins plus Iron and Zinc”! A mental red light started flashing – “fortified”! Are they allowed to say that?

In the Regulations Relating to the Labelling and Advertising of Foodstuffs (R146/2010 as amended) there are certain words or phrases, claims or imputations that are prohibited (regulation 13d to 13f), and there is a restriction on the use of the word “fortified”:

51. (1) No claim not permitted according to these regulations shall be allowed to appear on foodstuff labels or any advertisement thereof.
(2) The label of the food vehicle, in respect of which a claim is made that a food vehicle is fortified as required by regulations relating to the fortification of foodstuffs under the Act, shall bear the format for the prescribed nutritional information declaration as described in point 1 of Annexure 2, expressed per daily serving and per 100g, as well as nutritional information relevant to the fortification specifications: Provided that in the case of dry, uncooked wheat flour and dry, uncooked maize meal as purchased, the daily serving shall be regarded as 100g.

The fortification Regulations (R504/2012) are very clear in the definition of “food vehicle”, and cornflakes do not qualify!
I checked my understanding with the DoH and the reply I received from them was as follows:
“Your understanding is correct, fortification can only be claimed for a food vehicle, and corn flakes are not included in the definition of “food vehicle”.
The appropriate word that Kelloggs could have used is enriched from the word "enrichment" taken from the Regulation R.504, which means the addition of one or more nutrients to a foodstuff with the sole purpose of adding nutritional value to the food.
In order to use the word "fortified" the food vehicle should be from the mandatory fortified products, where micronutrients are added by means of using fortification mix. Food vehicle should be dry and uncooked, and can also be bread prepared with and containing at least 90% fortified wheat flour, excluding water. With the purpose of preventing or correcting a demonstrated deficiency of nutrients in the general population.”

I have asked them whether they will engage with Kellogg to get them to make their packaging compliant (across the whole range of size variants). Let’s see what happens….

Come on Kellogg's South Africa – you can do better!

Oh, and don't forget your website! That's covered by R146 too.

Send a message to learn more

15/06/2024

Where's my magnifying glass?
The food labelling Regulations (currently R146/2010 as amended) contain regulations about minimum letter heights for various bits of information on the packaging of a food item. The general rule, except where provided otherwise, is a minimum of 1 mm for lowercase vowels.

Just recently my wife handed me a couple of items from our cupboard and asked, "Is this legal? I can't read it!". I took a look and also struggled to read the ingredient list so my first instinct was to measure the lettering. My gut told me it was below 1 mm for the lowercase vowels, but this time my instinct was wrong; the letters were indeed at the requisite minimum height. However, the text was condensed so the spacing between the letters had been reduced. What also didn't help was cream-coloured lettering on the red background of the mayonnaise label.

So, was it legal? My opinion is that it wasn't as there is also a requirement that it be, "clearly visible, easily legible and indelible and the legibility thereof shall not be affected by pictorial or any other matter, printed or otherwise".

The information on food packaging is there to inform the consumer so that they can make an informed choice when purchasing. Without a magnifying glass, many would not be able to read the ingredients and maybe put the product back on the shelf.

....

Send a message to learn more