9 October 2002
DRAFT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Full Report [ pdf 501 kb ]
Executive Summary and Statement of Reasons
The Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) to FSANZ transitional requirements for an application at full (draft) assessment stage have been followed and no additional submissions have been received.
Regulatory Problem
Volume 2 of the Food Standards Code requires MSG to be specifically declared by its name or code number in the statement of ingredients when it is added to food. For unpackaged foods and food prepared in restaurants and other types of food outlets, there is no requirement to specifically declare MSG. The New South Wales Department of Health (NSW Health) applied to have the Food Standards Code amended to make it mandatory for MSG to be declared on menus or on prominently displayed signs when it is added to foods or food ingredients by restaurants and other food outlets. NSW Health also requested advice on whether alternatives to regulation, such as an industry education campaign on the potential effects of the use of MSG, could be effective in reducing the impact of MSG.
Objective
The key objectives in assessing the application are the protection of public health and safety and the provision of adequate information to consumers to make informed choices. Regard was also given to the need for standards to be based on risk analysis using the best available scientific evidence.
Options
Three options have been considered - to maintain the status quo and not require the mandatory declaration of the addition to foods of MSG by restaurants and other food outlets (Option 1); to amend the Food Standards Code and require the mandatory written declaration of MSG by restaurants and other food outlets, where MSG has been added during cooking or food preparation (Option 2); and to maintain thestatus quobut with the development of an education campaign aimed at both the food service sector and consumers (Option 3).
Scientific assessment
The assessment found no convincing evidence that MSG is a significant factor in causing, systemic reactions resulting in severe illness or mortality. While there is evidence that mild reactions may be triggered in certain individuals through the consumption of large amounts of MSG, these effects are neither persistent nor serious and are more likely to occur when MSG is consumed in the absence of food. In terms of more serious adverse effects such as the triggering of bronchospasm in asthmatic individuals, the evidence does not indicate that MSG is a significant trigger factor.
Impacts
Option 3 is the preferred option. This option will be of net benefit to all affected parties, in that it will facilitate the provision of better information to both the food industry and consumers, with minimal associated cost.
Option 1 was rejected because consumers and the food industry would be no better off in terms of being provided with information about MSG and Option 2 was rejected because it would impose significant costs on all sectors and these are judged to far outweigh any potential benefit.
Consultation
One round of public consultation has been conducted with a total of 42 submissions being received. The majority of submissions, including from individuals, were opposed to the application.
Those opposing the application did so primarily on the grounds that MSG is a safe food additive and that there is no conclusive evidence that it is responsible for causing severe adverse reactions in sensitive individuals.
Conclusion and Statement of Reasons
The adoption of the proposed amendment to the Food Standards Code for the mandatory written declaration of MSG by restaurants and other food outlets is not warranted for the following reasons:
-
mandatory declaration is reserved for those substances that may cause severe adverse reactions when present in foods;
-
the safety assessment has concluded that, while ingestion of large amounts of MSG may cause mild forms of adverse reactions in small numbers of sensitive individuals, there is no convincing evidence that MSG is responsible for causing more severe adverse reactions. The proposed measure would therefore be disproportionate to the risk posed by MSG;
-
the proposed measure would be inconsistent with the mandatory declaration requirements currently in place in the Food Standards Code in that it would allow the information to be provided in written form only rather than verbally on request to the purchaser;
-
the proposed measure may also not achieve its intended purpose of reducing the risk of adverse reactions to MSG as it would only apply to MSG added at the eating establishment, not to MSG/glutamate from all sources. This also has the potential to result in misleading information being provided to consumers;
-
the regulation impact assessment has concluded that the costs associated with such a measure far outweigh any of the potential benefits;
-
the most cost-effective option to address the problem would be an education campaign aimed at providing factual information about MSG to both the food service sector and consumers. consumers would have better information about MSG, its sources and how best to deal with any suspected sensitivity and food outlets would be better informed about the needs of consumers and how best to respond to their requests for information.
Full Report [ pdf 501 kb ]